镜像站点 · 本页由第三方 GitHub 只读镜像提供，非 GitHub 官方站点，不接受任何登录或凭据输入。前往 github.com
Skip to content

Recently-introduced breaking change (unintentional?) in process.uptime() #26205

Closed
Closed
Recently-introduced breaking change (unintentional?) in process.uptime()#26205
Labels
flaky-testIssues and PRs involving tests that fail intermittently in CI.

Description

@Trott
Trott
opened on Feb 19, 2019

https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-commit-custom-suites/879/default/console

test-rackspace-ubuntu1604-x64-1

00:09:47 not ok 95 pummel/test-process-uptime
00:09:47   ---
00:09:47   duration_ms: 0.214
00:09:47   severity: fail
00:09:47   exitcode: 1
00:09:47   stack: |-
00:09:47     107252.491
00:09:47     assert.js:351
00:09:47         throw err;
00:09:47         ^
00:09:47     
00:09:48     AssertionError [ERR_ASSERTION]: The expression evaluated to a falsy value:
00:09:48     
00:09:48       assert.ok(process.uptime() <= 2)
00:09:48     
00:09:48         at Object.<anonymous> (/home/iojs/build/workspace/node-test-commit-custom-suites/default/test/pummel/test-process-uptime.js:27:8)
00:09:48         at Module._compile (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:746:30)
00:09:48         at Object.Module._extensions..js (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:757:10)
00:09:48         at Module.load (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:638:32)
00:09:48         at tryModuleLoad (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:570:12)
00:09:48         at Function.Module._load (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:562:3)
00:09:48         at Function.Module.runMain (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:809:12)
00:09:48         at internal/main/run_main_module.js:21:11
00:09:48   ...

Activity

  1. Trott
    added
    flaky-testIssues and PRs involving tests that fail intermittently in CI.
    on Feb 19, 2019

  2. Trott commented on Feb 19, 2019

    @Trott
    Trott
    on Feb 19, 2019
    MemberAuthor

    Actually, this looks like a genuine bug and not something flaky.

  3. Trott
    changed the title [-]Investigate flaky pummel/test-process-uptime[/-] [+]Recently-introduced bug in process.uptime()[/+] on Feb 19, 2019
  4. Trott
    changed the title [-]Recently-introduced bug in process.uptime()[/-] [+]Recently-introduced breaking change (unintentional?) in process.uptime()[/+] on Feb 19, 2019

  5. Trott commented on Feb 19, 2019

    @Trott
    Trott
    on Feb 19, 2019
    MemberAuthor

    fd0a861 seems like a likely culprit. /cc @joyeecheung

  6. addaleax commented on Feb 19, 2019

    @addaleax
    addaleax
    on Feb 19, 2019
    Member

    Btw, the test doesn’t look like something that should go into pummel/?

  7. Trott commented on Feb 19, 2019

    @Trott
    Trott
    on Feb 19, 2019
    MemberAuthor

    Btw, the test doesn’t look like something that should go into pummel/?

    Agreed. It can at least go in sequential and might be perfectly fine in parallel, although the check that the initial call is <= 2 might need to be <= common.platformTimeout(2). (Would need empirical testing to find out.) The long 2000ms timer can also likely be shortened. In fact, we can probably get rid of it entirely and just check that a subsequent call to uptime() returns a number greater than the previous call (and not too much greater than the previous call perhaps).

  8. joyeecheung commented on Feb 19, 2019

    @joyeecheung
    joyeecheung
    on Feb 19, 2019
    Member

    If we are only testing that the uptime is in the right unit, testing the initial value < 1000 should be fine? Or something like common.platformTimeout(10)?

  9. addaleax commented on Feb 19, 2019

    @addaleax
    addaleax
    on Feb 19, 2019
    Member

    If we are only testing that the uptime is in the right unit, testing the initial value < 1000 should be fine?

    The 2 seconds that are currently in the test doesn’t seem like a bad value to me, but I think we had problems in the recent past with a test that relied on a fixed startup time limit. (I unfortunately don’t remember which test that was, so I don’t know what the problematic value was).

  10. joyeecheung commented on Feb 19, 2019

    @joyeecheung
    joyeecheung
    on Feb 19, 2019
    Member

    @addaleax The current value in test-performance.js is 15 seconds, that seems to work fine?

  11. joyeecheung commented on Feb 19, 2019

    @joyeecheung
    joyeecheung
    on Feb 19, 2019
    Member

    Fix in #26206

  12. Trott
    added 2 commits that reference this issue on Feb 19, 2019

    process: fix calculation in process.uptime()

    a32c574

    process: move test-process-uptime to parallel

    5c9b37b
  13. Trott
    closed this as completedin a32c574on Feb 19, 2019
  14. addaleax
    added 2 commits that reference this issue on Feb 21, 2019

    process: fix calculation in process.uptime()

    14b8eb5

    process: move test-process-uptime to parallel

    356923f
  15. rvagg
    added 2 commits that reference this issue on Feb 28, 2019

    process: fix calculation in process.uptime()

    fde4011

    process: move test-process-uptime to parallel

    cd10e25
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    flaky-testIssues and PRs involving tests that fail intermittently in CI.

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions