Conversation
2b1fb45 to
6b6140e
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This loses the check that result is undefined. I'd prefer leaving the old code. I don't think common.expectsError() adds significant value, but the check for result is in fact significant.
Trott
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The changes to zlib-random-byte-pipes introduce flakiness under load that is not there currently.
|
With changes in this PR: $ tools/test.py -j 96 --repeat 96 test/parallel/test-zlib-random-byte-pipes.js
=== release test-zlib-random-byte-pipes ===
Path: parallel/test-zlib-random-byte-pipes
Mismatched noop function calls. Expected exactly 4, actual 5.
at Object.exports.mustCall (/Users/trott/io.js/test/common/index.js:475:10)
at Object.<anonymous> (/Users/trott/io.js/test/parallel/test-zlib-random-byte-pipes.js:153:23)
at Module._compile (module.js:573:30)
at Object.Module._extensions..js (module.js:584:10)
at Module.load (module.js:507:32)
at tryModuleLoad (module.js:470:12)
at Function.Module._load (module.js:462:3)
at Function.Module.runMain (module.js:609:10)
at startup (bootstrap_node.js:158:16)
Command: out/Release/node /Users/trott/io.js/test/parallel/test-zlib-random-byte-pipes.js
=== release test-zlib-random-byte-pipes ===
Path: parallel/test-zlib-random-byte-pipes
Mismatched noop function calls. Expected exactly 4, actual 5.
at Object.exports.mustCall (/Users/trott/io.js/test/common/index.js:475:10)
at Object.<anonymous> (/Users/trott/io.js/test/parallel/test-zlib-random-byte-pipes.js:153:23)
at Module._compile (module.js:573:30)
at Object.Module._extensions..js (module.js:584:10)
at Module.load (module.js:507:32)
at tryModuleLoad (module.js:470:12)
at Function.Module._load (module.js:462:3)
at Function.Module.runMain (module.js:609:10)
at startup (bootstrap_node.js:158:16)
Command: out/Release/node /Users/trott/io.js/test/parallel/test-zlib-random-byte-pipes.js
[...snip...]On current master: $ tools/test.py -j 96 --repeat 96 test/parallel/test-zlib-random-byte-pipes.js
[00:11|% 100|+ 96|- 0]: Done
$ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Empirical testing shows that there is no guarantee that this will be called 4 times. Under load at least, it may be called 5 times.
Assuming that discrepancy is valid behavior, seeing that this is all from inp.pipe(gzip).pipe(gunz).pipe(out) and we have a check later for the data event on out, I think this can just be removed. Probably the same for the gunz and gzip checks below.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Was a bit afraid of that. Looking at it, the on('data') events here look entirely unnecessary.
|
@Trott ... updated |
|
ping @Trott ... I know this needs a rebase, but when you get a moment to take another look I'd appreciate it :-) |
|
@nodejs/testing |
daff20c to
a905f3b
Compare
|
Rebased! |
addaleax
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM, two small comments but nothing I’d consider blocking
| write(c) { | ||
| // Simulate the way that an fs.ReadStream returns false | ||
| // on *every* write like a jerk, only to resume a | ||
| // moment later. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unrelated, but we shouldn’t keep this in the source code.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
heh... indeed. completely missed that!
| // on *every* write like a jerk, only to resume a | ||
| // moment later. | ||
| this._hasher.update(c); | ||
| process.nextTick(this.resume.bind(this)); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Feel free to replace these with arrow functions if you like :)
|
oops... wrong CI for this PR ... https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/9476/ |
|
Only failure is unrelated. |
PR-URL: #14455 Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>
|
Landed in 4e8bc71 |
PR-URL: #14455 Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>
PR-URL: #14455 Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net>
Multiple general improvements to zlib tests
Checklist
make -j4 test(UNIX), orvcbuild test(Windows) passesAffected core subsystem(s)
test