| FazBrowse GitHub Viewer | Trending | | Home |
| Tools: [Download Repo ZIP] [Original HTTPS Page] |
Sorry, something went wrong.
Previously when checking the initial timing we did a lot of checks after accessing and copying timing.duration and before we check that timing.duration is roughly the same as performance.now(), which can lead to flakes if the overhead of the checking is big enough. Update the test to check timing.duration against performance.now() as soon as possible when it's copied instead of computed. :#
|
We don't have shared library boxes for the stress tests so I only started the stress test on osx-11 PR: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-stress-single-test/450/ |
Sorry, something went wrong.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Previously when checking the initial timing we did a lot of checks after accessing and copying timing.duration and before we check that timing.duration is roughly the same as performance.now(), which can lead to flakes if the overhead of the checking is big enough. Update the test to check timing.duration against performance.now() as soon as possible when it's copied instead of computed. :# PR-URL: #49892 Refs: nodejs/reliability#676 Reviewed-By: Chemi Atlow <chemi@atlow.co.il> Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <rlau@redhat.com>
|
CI was green but the bot had trouble communicating the CI status back to GitHub. Landed manually in 4d0aeed |
Sorry, something went wrong.
Previously when checking the initial timing we did a lot of checks after accessing and copying timing.duration and before we check that timing.duration is roughly the same as performance.now(), which can lead to flakes if the overhead of the checking is big enough. Update the test to check timing.duration against performance.now() as soon as possible when it's copied instead of computed. :# PR-URL: #49892 Refs: nodejs/reliability#676 Reviewed-By: Chemi Atlow <chemi@atlow.co.il> Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <rlau@redhat.com>
Previously when checking the initial timing we did a lot of checks after accessing and copying timing.duration and before we check that timing.duration is roughly the same as performance.now(), which can lead to flakes if the overhead of the checking is big enough. Update the test to check timing.duration against performance.now() as soon as possible when it's copied instead of computed. :# PR-URL: nodejs#49892 Refs: nodejs/reliability#676 Reviewed-By: Chemi Atlow <chemi@atlow.co.il> Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <rlau@redhat.com>
Previously when checking the initial timing we did a lot of checks after accessing and copying timing.duration and before we check that timing.duration is roughly the same as performance.now(), which can lead to flakes if the overhead of the checking is big enough. Update the test to check timing.duration against performance.now() as soon as possible when it's copied instead of computed. :# PR-URL: #49892 Refs: nodejs/reliability#676 Reviewed-By: Chemi Atlow <chemi@atlow.co.il> Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <rlau@redhat.com>
| Back | FazBrowse Home | New Git URL |
Previously when checking the initial timing we did a lot of checks after accessing and copying timing.duration and before we check that timing.duration is roughly the same as performance.now(), which can lead to flakes if the overhead of the checking is big enough. Update the test to check timing.duration against performance.now() as soon as possible when it's copied instead of computed.
Refs: nodejs/reliability#676