setup/teardownTimeout behavior when set to 0s

[cuonglm]

Currently, setup/teaddownTimeout duration if set to 0s means we can't run setup/teardown functions anymore. With script:

import http from 'k6/http';
import { k6 } from 'k6';

export function setup() {
  sleep(1);
}

export default function() {
  const response = http.get("http://test.loadimpact.com");
};

Run:

$ K6_SETUP_TIMEOUT=0s k6 run t.js

          /\      |‾‾|  /‾‾/  /‾/
     /\  /  \     |  |_/  /  / /
    /  \/    \    |      |  /  ‾‾\
   /          \   |  |‾\  \ | (_) |
  / __________ \  |__|  \__\ \___/ .io

  execution: local
     output: -
     script: t.js

    duration: -,  iterations: 1
         vus: 1, max: 1

ERRO[0000] Setup timeout                                 error="setup: Timeout during setup"
ERRO[0000] Setup timeout
exit 100

In most libraries, setting timeout duration to 0 often means disable the timeout. Should we adopt that behavior to k6 as well?

[cuonglm]

We do have minIterationDuration which will be disable when set to 0.

[JustJordanT]

Is this something that still needs to be worked on?

[mstoykov]

Hu @JustJordanT - yes it appears nobody has worked on it and it still a problem.

[tsukasaI]

Hi, can I take this one?

[tsukasaI]

Hi, I opened PR.
I would appreciate your reply. Thank you!

[mstoykov]

I don't think we should have a way to disable the timeout in more or less the same vein as #2701 - there is no need for that.

The current proposed PR disables the setup/teardown execution, but I am not particularly certain that is a good idea either. There already is an option for that, and I will expect that ... yes most people will expect this to mean it is infinite, and then it just doesn't run.

I am kind of for this just being a validation error similar to if you define it as negative number.

cc @grafana/k6-core

[tsukasaI]

@mstoykov

Thank you for comment.

Oh Yeah, I would think we should have a validation for that this property is positive number.

Can I introduce the validation?

[tsukasaI]

Hi @mstoykov
I updated my PR. #3898

I would appreciate your review. Thank you!

[mstoykov]

This was fixed with #3898 thanks to @tsukasaI 🙇