-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 60
Run multiple event persisters when using Redis #972
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.
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
Merged
+123
−34
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
51d24eb
Run multiple event persisters when using Redis
erikjohnston 935782b
Fix flakey test
erikjohnston b18ed7c
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/develop' into erikj/periodic_poke
erikjohnston 2fab331
Add comment
erikjohnston 8d4d21d
Damn typos
erikjohnston File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
why are these changes necessary? And if they are really necessary, can we limit the number of times we retry, rather than going on forever?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The test was flakey. This may no longer be necessary, but in general I don't think the public room lists get updated immediately (as they can be populated via background processes).
The
retry_until_successwill get killed by the test timeout, which is how we useretry_until_success/repeat_until_trueelsewhere?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
could you add a comment to say that we're retrying because the directory is updated asynchonously, or sth.
My main gripe with
retry_until_successis that it turns test failures into test timeouts, which we tend to ignore as "oh we had a slow VM for random reasons", so a limit on the number of retries is preferable if possible.The other problem with
retry_until_successis that it swallows the failure, so you can't see what's going wrong. https://github.com/matrix-org/sytest/blob/develop/tests/30rooms/04messages.pl#L387-L408 includes a bunch of code to log what's going on, but on closer inspection maybe we should put all that boilerplate intoretry_until_success(which could maybe also benefit from a "try N times" param which defaults to something other than "infinity").There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Have added a comment.
Yeah, I think that sounds like a general issue with
retry_until_success. We use this pattern a lot so it feels like something to investigate and improve separately.