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.

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

Intermittent failure in condvar functional test #1318

Closed
jphickey opened this issue Oct 25, 2022 · 0 comments · Fixed by #1319
Closed

Intermittent failure in condvar functional test #1318

jphickey opened this issue Oct 25, 2022 · 0 comments · Fixed by #1319
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@jphickey
Copy link
Contributor

Describe the bug
Occasionally the "condvar" functional test fails with an unexpected result, snippet of the test log here:

[ PASS] 02.017 condvar-test.c:170 - curr_condition (5) != ALL_RUN_CONDITION (7)
[ PASS] 02.018 condvar-test.c:171 - curr_condition (5) != 0 (0)
[ FAIL] 02.019 condvar-test.c:172 - task_states[i].run_count (0) == 1 (1)

The test case is expecting that the tasks will wake up in the same order on which they started pending on the condvar, but in this run, the second task woke up before the first task did.

To Reproduce
Intermittent issue, not directly reproducible. Not seen running locally, seems to occur only on cloud hosts where perhaps timing is not as accurate and system load is not predictable.

Expected behavior
Tests should pass

System observed on:
Github workflow

Additional context
As POSIX does not specifically guarantee an execution order here, this test case should be relaxed and not assume that tasks will execute work in the order they started.

Reporter Info
Joseph Hickey, Vantage Systems, Inc.

@jphickey jphickey self-assigned this Oct 25, 2022
dzbaker added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 25, 2022
@dmknutsen dmknutsen added this to the Draco milestone Jan 18, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants