Skip to content
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

e2e/acceptance/versions: Fix potential flaky test case #10277

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 29, 2024

Conversation

eth3lbert
Copy link
Contributor

This is another PR that extracted from #10248.

Wait before calling `evaluateAll()` to ensure all rows are available.
@Turbo87
Copy link
Member

Turbo87 commented Dec 26, 2024

Fix potential flaky test case

Can you explain in what case this can be flaky?

@Turbo87 Turbo87 added A-frontend 🐹 C-internal 🔧 Category: Nonessential work that would make the codebase more consistent or clear labels Dec 26, 2024
@eth3lbert
Copy link
Contributor Author

Fix potential flaky test case

Can you explain in what case this can be flaky?

I recall a timeout or failure in that test case 😅

Since expect(...).toEqual(...) is a non-retrying assertion, I added a check to ensure we obtain the expected results from evaluateAll before making the assertion.

@Turbo87 Turbo87 merged commit 1ae8808 into rust-lang:main Dec 29, 2024
9 checks passed
@eth3lbert eth3lbert deleted the fix-e2e-flaky branch December 30, 2024 16:03
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-frontend 🐹 C-internal 🔧 Category: Nonessential work that would make the codebase more consistent or clear
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants