-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29.7k
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
test: adding mustCall in test-timers-unrefed-in-callback.js #12594
test: adding mustCall in test-timers-unrefed-in-callback.js #12594
Conversation
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.
timer2.unref(); | ||
if (counter2++ === 3) | ||
server.close(); | ||
}, 1); | ||
}, 4), 1); |
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.
I'm not sure this change is correct, especially given the comment block preceding this second test.
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.
I believe it is, but it isn't what are testing so it was left out of the original.
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.
LGTM if CI is happy
Changes made so running CI again. |
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 change is now not ideal. @Zahidul-Islam Please disregard @mscdex's comment and re-add a common.mustCall()
to the second timer.
@Fishrock123 Doing that will result in a flaky unreliable test. That function can fire 4 times or 5 times, so we cannot use Since it was not being checked in the original test, I think @mscdex is right and we should not check it here. If we want to add a |
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.
This LGTM as it currently stands.
Please do elaborate on why that is? It will definitely fire only one or the other. If the server fully closes this loop, then 4. Otherwise, 5. Is that actually non-deterministic? |
@Fishrock123 The key is to run it under load. Copy this to 'use strict';
// Checks that setInterval timers keep running even when they're
// unrefed within their callback.
require('../common');
const assert = require('assert');
const net = require('net');
let counter1 = 0;
let counter2 = 0;
// Test1 checks that clearInterval works as expected for a timer
// unrefed within its callback: it removes the timer and its callback
// is not called anymore. Note that the only reason why this test is
// robust is that:
// 1. the repeated timer it creates has a delay of 1ms
// 2. when this test is completed, another test starts that creates a
// new repeated timer with the same delay (1ms)
// 3. because of the way timers are implemented in libuv, if two
// repeated timers A and B are created in that order with the same
// delay, it is guaranteed that the first occurrence of timer A
// will fire before the first occurrence of timer B
// 4. as a result, when the timer created by Test2 fired 11 times, if
// the timer created by Test1 hadn't been removed by clearInterval,
// it would have fired 11 more times, and the assertion in the
// process'exit event handler would fail.
function Test1() {
// server only for maintaining event loop
const server = net.createServer().listen(0);
const timer1 = setInterval(() => {
timer1.unref();
if (counter1++ === 3) {
clearInterval(timer1);
server.close(() => {
Test2();
});
}
}, 1);
}
// Test2 checks setInterval continues even if it is unrefed within
// timer callback. counter2 continues to be incremented more than 11
// until server close completed.
function Test2() {
// server only for maintaining event loop
const server = net.createServer().listen(0);
const timer2 = setInterval(() => {
timer2.unref();
if (counter2++ === 3)
server.close();
}, 1);
}
process.on('exit', () => {
assert.strictEqual(counter1, 4);
// cause it to fail so that the value of counter2 is displayed by test.py
assert.fail(`counter2: ${counter2}`);
});
Test1(); The only change is in the If I run the above on my otherwise-idle laptop, it reliably indicates that $ tools/test.py --repeat 128 -j 64 test/parallel/test-fishrock123.js
=== release test-fishrock123 ===
Path: parallel/test-fishrock123
assert.js:86
throw new assert.AssertionError({
^
AssertionError: counter2: 5
at process.on (/Users/trott/io.js/test/parallel/test-fishrock123.js:60:10)
at emitOne (events.js:120:20)
at process.emit (events.js:210:7)
Command: out/Release/node /Users/trott/io.js/test/parallel/test-fishrock123.js
=== release test-fishrock123 ===
Path: parallel/test-fishrock123
assert.js:86
throw new assert.AssertionError({
^
AssertionError: counter2: 4
at process.on (/Users/trott/io.js/test/parallel/test-fishrock123.js:60:10)
at emitOne (events.js:120:20)
at process.emit (events.js:210:7)
Command: out/Release/node /Users/trott/io.js/test/parallel/test-fishrock123.js
=== release test-fishrock123 ===
Path: parallel/test-fishrock123
assert.js:86
throw new assert.AssertionError({
^
AssertionError: counter2: 5
at process.on (/Users/trott/io.js/test/parallel/test-fishrock123.js:60:10)
at emitOne (events.js:120:20)
at process.emit (events.js:210:7)
Command: out/Release/node /Users/trott/io.js/test/parallel/test-fishrock123.js
=== release test-fishrock123 ===
Path: parallel/test-fishrock123
assert.js:86
throw new assert.AssertionError({
^
AssertionError: counter2: 4
at process.on (/Users/trott/io.js/test/parallel/test-fishrock123.js:60:10)
at emitOne (events.js:120:20)
at process.emit (events.js:210:7)
Command: out/Release/node /Users/trott/io.js/test/parallel/test-fishrock123.js
=== release test-fishrock123 ===
Path: parallel/test-fishrock123
assert.js:86
throw new assert.AssertionError({
^
AssertionError: counter2: 4
at process.on (/Users/trott/io.js/test/parallel/test-fishrock123.js:60:10)
at emitOne (events.js:120:20)
at process.emit (events.js:210:7)
Command: out/Release/node /Users/trott/io.js/test/parallel/test-fishrock123.js
=== release test-fishrock123 ===
Path: parallel/test-fishrock123
assert.js:86
throw new assert.AssertionError({
... |
@Trott @Fishrock123 @addaleax @jasnell appreciate any suggestion what I should do? |
@Zahidul-Islam I think it's fine as-is. @Fishrock123? |
LGTM |
@Fishrock123 ping … if there are no further comments here, I am going to assume you are fine with this change as it is (especially as the diff itself here should not contain anything controversial in my eyes) |
Pinged multiple times including a week ago with "if there are no further comments here, I am going to assume you are fine with this", dismissing
PR-URL: nodejs#12594 Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Brian White <[email protected]>
Landed in 3fd890a. |
PR-URL: nodejs#12594 Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Brian White <[email protected]>
PR-URL: #12594 Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Brian White <[email protected]>
PR-URL: #12594 Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Brian White <[email protected]>
Checklist
make -j4 test
(UNIX), orvcbuild test
(Windows) passesAffected core subsystem(s)