-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 359
fix(ci): Fix consistent iOS E2E flakiness on Cirrus Labs runners #5752
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
Draft
antonis
wants to merge
9
commits into
main
Choose a base branch
from
antonis/e2e-ios-flakiness-fix
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Draft
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
9 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
944e559
fix(ci): Fix iOS E2E flakiness on Cirrus Labs runners
antonis e11b770
fix(e2e): Prevent crash-loop after nativeCrash test on iOS
antonis 06792e1
fix(ci): Add simulator warm-up and disable erase_before_boot for Tart…
antonis 54daf49
fix(ci): Retry iOS E2E suite up to 3 times on Tart VMs
antonis b262610
fix(e2e): Retry each Maestro flow individually up to 3 times
antonis f7cb890
fix(e2e): Use execFileSync to avoid shell injection in maestro command
antonis 56f999d
Merge branch 'main' into antonis/e2e-ios-flakiness-fix
antonis 4a309b3
Merge branch 'main' into antonis/e2e-ios-flakiness-fix
antonis 4d9b775
fix(ci): Add || true to simulator warm-up commands
antonis File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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 have mixed feelings about it because it basically is an attempt to fix the issue with flakiness by trying it three times to run the same test. I also wonder if it works considering that the flakiness is consistent + it doesn't seem like it guarantees to work.
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.
That's a good point @alwx 👍
I don't like this much either because it's a workaround. I don't have other ideas on this at this point though. It seems that the tests have started failing randomly (not always the same test fails) thus the retries attempt to overcome this by making individual automatic test retries rather than manually rerunning the whole test.