-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 117
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
rewrite flaky broker_deleted_recreated #4175
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
rewrite flaky broker_deleted_recreated #4175
Conversation
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: maschmid The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #4175 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 45.53% 45.53%
=======================================
Files 270 270
Lines 19925 19925
=======================================
Hits 9072 9072
Misses 10127 10127
Partials 726 726 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
/retest-required |
@maschmid: The following tests failed, say
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
Fixes a flaky BrokerDeletedRecreated test,
the current implementation is not guaranteed to succeed, as it is not defined when the dataplane will reconfigure itself once the old trigger is deleted, so it may sometimes occur, that the new event is still sent to the fist sink, and not the new one.
This new implementation checks that eventually, a sequence is only being received by the other sink.
This approach requires new kinds of assertions about a sequence, instead of just individual events received/not received, hence there is a proposal for some kind of a DSL for assertions over such sequences...
I am not quite sure this kind of DSL is a good idea or if it would be useful in other scenarios, so I could also just rewrite this with just a single one-purpose function instead, if we think there's not much value in it...
Proposed Changes