| FazBrowse GitHub Viewer | Trending | | Home |
| Tools: [Download Repo ZIP] [Original HTTPS Page] |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
@nodejs/http2 |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Lgtm with green ci |
Sorry, something went wrong.
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
I'm afraid I don't understand the test results. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
I can make the test run quicker by decreasing maxSessionMemory and thus the number of iterations |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
The test likely should go into test/sequential or maybe even test/pummel |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
New CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/17495/ @davedoesdev If a tests takes longer than 20s or so, you might want to consider moving it to test/pummel/. But if we can avoid that, that would be ideal, because those tests aren’t run as part of regular CI runs. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
The revised test should only take a few seconds. The new CI test failure on Linux is test.parallel/test-gc-http-client-timeout. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Re-run of CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/17576/ |
Sorry, something went wrong.
Decreasing maxSessionMemory lets us decrease number of iteractions before the exception occurs without the fix.
|
Those tests are failing ontest-gc-net-timeout. I notice that other PRs (e.g. https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/17567/) are also failing. Are the CI tests usually 100% pass? |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nit: can't we use stream.resume() instead of piping to a dummy writable?
Sorry, something went wrong.
No, there are some flaky tests. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Re-run of failing node-test-commit-linux ✔️ |
Sorry, something went wrong.
| Back | FazBrowse Home | New Git URL |
Fixes: #23116
Checklist