wip: [example-browser] Change backend startup method #3961
Conversation
|
@marcdumais-work can you tell me if this improves stability for you? Every time I think it might be improving, I get another random failure. The flakiness is killing me. cc @simark, if you have any opinion regarding this change. |
|
@akosyakov Can you give me your opinion on these changes? I know it is better to not fix something that doesn't look broken, but I remember having issues. So I tried to start the backend in a more "clean" way, isolated in its own separate process, in a much more similar way than what we would actually do. Also catches the coverage failure at the end, because it seems like for most tests we don't generate anything anyway. |
|
@marechal-p sorry, i don't want to dive into it, i would be fine if @simark, @marcdumais-work review it |
akosyakov
requested review from
akosyakov,
simark and
marcdumais-work
and removed request for
akosyakov
Before, we were executing the server in the process that used to run the tests. Changed that so that the backend is fully independent from the test process. Signed-off-by: Paul Maréchal <paul.marechal@ericsson.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul Maréchal <paul.marechal@ericsson.com>
paul-marechal
force-pushed
the
mp/browser-test-fix
branch
2 times, most recently
from
c13e18c to
7317437
Compare
Signed-off-by: Paul Maréchal <paul.marechal@ericsson.com>
paul-marechal
force-pushed
the
mp/browser-test-fix
branch
from
7317437 to
9029b08
Compare
|
#4089 will fix the issues with AppVeyor 🎉 |
Before, we were executing the server in the process that used to run the tests.
Changed that so that the backend is fully independent from the test process.
Signed-off-by: Paul Maréchal paul.marechal@ericsson.com