Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Fix failover test for reparenting #14963

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Fix failover test for reparenting #14963

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

dbussink
Copy link
Contributor

@dbussink dbussink commented Jan 16, 2024 •
edited
Loading

This test is pretty broken, as it uses MariaDB replication, but we're running this with MySQL.

The reason the test doesn't outright fail is a combination of two things. First, the test doesn't assert that the command to change replication don't error, so it returns an error.

Secondly, this is also affect by the multi execute issue of #14948, so it's not even guaranteed the queries run properly.

Marked for backporting as this test is broken also in older releases and can lead to test flakiness and lack of exercising the right thing to avoid future regressions.

Related Issue(s)

Part of #14948

Checklist

  • "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported to release branches
  • If this change is to be back-ported to previous releases, a justification is included in the PR description
  • Tests were added or are not required
  • Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on CI?
  • Documentation was added or is not required

@dbussink dbussink requested a review from deepthi as a code owner January 16, 2024 08:47
@vitess-bot vitess-bot
Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Jan 16, 2024

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

  • Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
  • Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

  • Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

  • Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
  • New features should be documented.
  • There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
  • There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

  • Is this flag really necessary?
  • Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

  • Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
  • If the workflow needs to be marked as required, the maintainer team must be notified.

Backward compatibility

  • Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
  • Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
  • RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
  • If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from vitess-operator and arewefastyet, if used there.
  • vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.

@vitess-bot vitess-bot bot added NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says labels Jan 16, 2024
@dbussink dbussink requested a review from shlomi-noach January 16, 2024 08:47
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v19.0.0 milestone Jan 16, 2024
@dbussink dbussink removed NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required labels Jan 16, 2024
@codecov Codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 16, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

Attention: 227 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (eddb39e) 47.29% compared to head (a0422a5) 47.25%.
Report is 9 commits behind head on main.

Files Patch % Lines
...vt/vtgate/planbuilder/operators/sharded_routing.go 0.00% 40 Missing ⚠️
go/vt/vtgate/semantics/early_rewriter.go 86.19% 23 Missing and 10 partials ⚠️
...tgate/planbuilder/operators/aggregation_pushing.go 0.00% 25 Missing ⚠️
...vt/vtgate/planbuilder/operators/queryprojection.go 0.00% 20 Missing ⚠️
go/vt/vtgate/evalengine/expr_tuple_bvar.go 62.50% 14 Missing and 4 partials ⚠️
go/vt/vtgate/evalengine/cached_size.go 0.00% 10 Missing ⚠️
...gate/planbuilder/operators/info_schema_planning.go 0.00% 9 Missing ⚠️
go/vt/vtgate/planbuilder/operators/aggregator.go 0.00% 8 Missing ⚠️
go/vt/vtgate/planbuilder/operators/route.go 0.00% 7 Missing ⚠️
go/vt/vtgate/evalengine/format.go 0.00% 6 Missing ⚠️
... and 26 more
Additional details and impacted files 
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #14963      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   47.29%   47.25%   -0.05%     
==========================================
  Files        1137     1138       +1     
  Lines      238684   238843     +159     
==========================================
- Hits       112895   112872      -23     
- Misses     117168   117372     +204     
+ Partials     8621     8599      -22

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@dbussink
Fix failover test for reparenting
a0422a5 
This test is pretty broken, as it uses MariaDB replication, but we're
running this with MySQL.

The reason the test doesn't outright fail is a combination of two
things. First, the test doesn't assert that the command to change
replication don't error, so it returns an error.

Secondly, this is also affect by the multi execute issue of vitessio#14948, so
it's not even guaranteed the queries run properly.

Signed-off-by: Dirkjan Bussink <d.bussink@gmail.com>
@dbussink dbussink force-pushed the fix-reparenting-test branch from 5b16a45 to a0422a5 Compare January 16, 2024 09:28
@shlomi-noach
Copy link
Contributor

Incorporated into #14949

@dbussink
Copy link
Contributor Author

Incorporated into #14949

Closing in favor of this one.

@dbussink dbussink closed this Jan 22, 2024
@dbussink dbussink deleted the fix-reparenting-test branch January 22, 2024 09:06
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach shlomi-noach approved these changes

@deepthi deepthi Awaiting requested review from deepthi deepthi is a code owner

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
Component: TabletManager Type: Testing
Projects
None yet
Milestone
v19.0.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@dbussink @shlomi-noach