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

Revert https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/20555 #20919

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

Trott
Copy link
Member

@Trott Trott commented May 24, 2018

Bisecting has revealed that one of the two commits in #20555 is what makes the difference between a CI where async-hooks/test-zlib.zlib-binding.deflate fails and one where it passes. This reverts both commits in that PR because leaving the other commit would just leave unused code.

CI showing the test failing with 23a56e0: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-commit-linux/19021/

CI showing the test passing with the immediately previous commit 6f6f7f7: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-commit-linux/19023/

Ping @addaleax @apapirovski

Checklist
  • make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes

@Trott Trott added flaky-test Issues and PRs related to the tests with unstable failures on the CI. fast-track PRs that do not need to wait for 48 hours to land. labels May 24, 2018
@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added the lib / src Issues and PRs related to general changes in the lib or src directory. label May 24, 2018
@Trott
Copy link
Member Author

Trott commented May 24, 2018

Fixes #20907 but didn't put that in the metadata because I believe we leave revert commit messages pristine. At least, I believe I always have in the past.

@Trott
Copy link
Member Author

Trott commented May 24, 2018

@Trott
Copy link
Member Author

Trott commented May 24, 2018

Since unbreaking CI is one of our primary use cases for fast-track, I'm proposing it here. Please 👍 this comment if you support fast-tracking this PR.

Copy link
Member

@richardlau richardlau left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Rubber stamp LGTM to unbreak the CI.

@apapirovski
Copy link
Member

Personally, I'm -1 on reverting. We barely touch C++ code in that PR so it most likely just changed some timing to reveal an existing issue.

Could we instead label the test flaky and try to run valgrind like addaleax requested? Otherwise it will get really difficult to debug this given that it doesn't fail locally or on my own instance of ubuntu1604x64.

Copy link
Contributor

@cjihrig cjihrig left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Rubber stamp LGTM to fix CI, but if a proper fix can be found first, that's great too.

@apapirovski
Copy link
Member

Please give me until the morning to continue investigating. This PR was really hard to get landed and it has very little to do with why that test is failing now. I'm making decent progress so I'm hopeful of having an actual fix soon.

@Trott
Copy link
Member Author

Trott commented May 24, 2018

Please give me until the morning to continue investigating.

@apapirovski With your -1 on this, this can't land without a TSC vote anyway. So you definitely have at least that long, and quite a bit longer likely if you want/need it.

@Trott
Copy link
Member Author

Trott commented May 24, 2018

(By the way, I'd recommend making your -1 explicit with the Request Changes option. Otherwise, someone might miss your objection and land this.)

@Trott
Copy link
Member Author

Trott commented May 24, 2018

Two CI failures: arm-fanned which looks build related, and windows which is known flaky/unreliable right now.

arm-fanned re-run: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-commit-arm-fanned/1446/

Copy link
Member

@apapirovski apapirovski left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry, I'm officially blocking because I now know why the test is broken and this isn't the cause. (This PR changed GC timing and now the destructor in Zlib is failing.)

@Trott
Copy link
Member Author

Trott commented May 24, 2018

Sorry, I'm officially blocking because I now know why the test is broken and this isn't the cause. (This PR changed GC timing and now the destructor in Zlib is failing.)

👍 Thanks for all the work figuring this all out!

@richardlau richardlau removed the fast-track PRs that do not need to wait for 48 hours to land. label May 24, 2018
@BridgeAR
Copy link
Member

Closing as the test is marked flaky instead.

@BridgeAR BridgeAR closed this May 24, 2018
@Trott Trott deleted the revert-revert branch January 13, 2022 22:49
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
flaky-test Issues and PRs related to the tests with unstable failures on the CI. lib / src Issues and PRs related to general changes in the lib or src directory.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants