[sdk#994] Heal deadline #995
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Popov <vladimir.popov@xored.com>
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Popov <vladimir.popov@xored.com>
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Popov <vladimir.popov@xored.com>
Bolodya1997
force-pushed
the
sdk#994/heal-deadline
branch
from
aac442a
to
d125386
Compare
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Popov <vladimir.popov@xored.com>
Bolodya1997
force-pushed
the
sdk#994/heal-deadline
branch
3 times, most recently
from
438765f
to
ab3248e
Compare
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Popov <vladimir.popov@xored.com>
Bolodya1997
force-pushed
the
sdk#994/heal-deadline
branch
from
ab3248e
to
6ae8df2
Compare
| @@ -108,8 +108,6 @@ func (l *interposeServer) Request(ctx context.Context, request *networkservice.N | |||
| return result, nil | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| l.activeConnection.Delete(activeConnID) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do we need to delete this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When heal fails its first Request, it cleans up active connection - it results in Close failing with no active connection found because for interpose it looks like trying to close not existing connection. heal stands in chain after interpose, so client cannot stop healing in such case.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hm... As I can see with this fix activeConnection map will not delete connections.
Am I get it correctly that we got a leak of active connections?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You are right, missed this.
Fixed in other way with setting clientURL = nil an invoking next.Close in Close in case of no active connection exists.
| nseCtxCancel() | ||
| time.Sleep(100 * time.Millisecond) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do we need to add sleep here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This test validates that heal can be stopped after it has been started - so we need to wait for some time to make sure that heal is really running at the moment when we are trying to stop it.
Without this sleep test is also working, but it tests preventive heal stop - and so it is not the thing that should be tested here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there some other way we can make sure that heal has started?
Recently we found out that on CI 100ms sometimes isn't enough for thread synchronization. And the test where we had issues with timeout is much simpler, so complex heal tests likely require even more time to be sure that another thread started working.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This can be problematic.
Waiting for 100ms doesn't guarantee that heal has been started, but it does mean that in most test runs it will be so.
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Popov <vladimir.popov@xored.com>
Description
Issue link
Closes #994.
How Has This Been Tested?
Added unit testing to coverCovered by existing unit testingTypes of changes