test: fix changefeed_dup_error_restart test case #12378
Conversation
ti-chi-bot
bot
added
the
release-note-none
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: 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 |
Summary of ChangesHello @wk989898, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request addresses a potential flakiness in the Highlights
Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here. You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension. Footnotes
|
ti-chi-bot
bot
added
the
size/XS
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://cdn.statically.io/img/avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request addresses a flaky test, changefeed_dup_error_restart, by increasing the timeout for check_table_exists. The change is straightforward and should improve the reliability of the test. My review includes suggestions to refactor the hardcoded timeout value into a variable to enhance code maintainability and readability.
| run_sql "CREATE TABLE changefeed_dup_error_restart.finish_mark_1 (a int primary key);" | ||
| sleep 30 | ||
| check_table_exists "changefeed_dup_error_restart.finish_mark_1" ${DOWN_TIDB_HOST} ${DOWN_TIDB_PORT} 60 | ||
| check_table_exists "changefeed_dup_error_restart.finish_mark_1" ${DOWN_TIDB_HOST} ${DOWN_TIDB_PORT} 200 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The timeout value 200 is a magic number. To improve readability and maintainability, consider extracting it to a variable at the top of the script (e.g., CHECK_TABLE_TIMEOUT=200). This value is also duplicated on line 45.
| run_sql "CREATE TABLE changefeed_dup_error_restart.finish_mark_2 (a int primary key);" | ||
| sleep 30 | ||
| check_table_exists "changefeed_dup_error_restart.finish_mark_2" ${DOWN_TIDB_HOST} ${DOWN_TIDB_PORT} 60 | ||
| check_table_exists "changefeed_dup_error_restart.finish_mark_2" ${DOWN_TIDB_HOST} ${DOWN_TIDB_PORT} 200 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This timeout value 200 is a duplicate of the one on line 39. Using a shared variable would make the script easier to maintain if this value needs to be changed in the future.
|
/retest |
1 participant
What problem does this PR solve?
Issue Number: ref #11879
What is changed and how it works?
Increased the timeout for check_table_exists calls in the changefeed_dup_error_restart integration test from 60 seconds to 200 seconds to improve test reliability.
Check List
Tests
Questions
Will it cause performance regression or break compatibility?
Do you need to update user documentation, design documentation or monitoring documentation?
Release note