Fix flaky cache test#6373
Conversation
Co-authored-by: josh11b <15258583+josh11b@users.noreply.github.com>
| auto stale_runtimes_0_inode = | ||
| stale_runtimes[0].base_dir().Stat()->unix_inode(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Removing this will no longer compile.
| EXPECT_FALSE(stale_runtimes_0.base_dir().Stat()->unix_inode() | ||
| == stale_runtimes_0_inode && | ||
| stale_runtimes_0.base_dir().Stat()->mtime() | ||
| == stale_runtimes_0_mtime); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[diff] reported by reviewdog 🐶
| EXPECT_FALSE(stale_runtimes_0.base_dir().Stat()->unix_inode() | |
| == stale_runtimes_0_inode && | |
| stale_runtimes_0.base_dir().Stat()->mtime() | |
| == stale_runtimes_0_mtime); | |
| EXPECT_FALSE(stale_runtimes_0.base_dir().Stat()->unix_inode() == | |
| stale_runtimes_0_inode && | |
| stale_runtimes_0.base_dir().Stat()->mtime() == | |
| stale_runtimes_0_mtime); |
|
I don't think this is quite the right way to fix the test. Rather than relying on timestamps, we can force the I've sent #6387 which does this, and also makes some other improvements to make it easier to debug if this keeps happening. |
|
We triage inactive PRs and issues in order to make it easier to find active work. If this PR should remain active, please comment or remove the This PR is labeled |
|
We triage inactive PRs and issues in order to make it easier to find active work. If this PR should remain active or becomes active again, please reopen it. This PR was closed and archived because there has been no new activity in the 14 days since the |
Fixes a flaky test in runtimes_cache_test.cpp that gives a false failure when the filesystem reuses the inode of a stale cache entry.
Closes #6168