gh-116622: Mock the passage of time in Android logcat rate limit tests - #124015
gh-116622: Mock the passage of time in Android logcat rate limit tests#124015freakboy3742 merged 2 commits into
Conversation
Sorry, something went wrong.
| def tearDown(self): | ||
| self.logcat_process.terminate() | ||
| self.logcat_process.wait(LOOPBACK_TIMEOUT) | ||
| self.logcat_thread.join(LOOPBACK_TIMEOUT) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This fixes an unrelated warning I saw while running the tests repeatedly with -F:
Warning -- threading._dangling was modified by test_android
Warning -- Before: {<weakref at 0x7c15b68e00; to 'threading._MainThread' at 0x7c18f5fcb0>}
Warning -- After: {<weakref at 0x7c186e3ce0; to 'threading._MainThread' at 0x7c18f5fcb0>, <weakref at 0x7c1870ef20; to 'threading.Thread' at 0x7c183faa50>}
Sorry, something went wrong.
| stream.write(obj) | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| class TestAndroidRateLimit(unittest.TestCase): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This test doesn't read its own output, so it doesn't need the @skipIf or the setUp from the other class.
Sorry, something went wrong.
freakboy3742
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
👍
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Thanks @mhsmith for the PR, and @freakboy3742 for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.13. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
…t tests (pythonGH-124015) Mock the passage of time in Android logcat rate limit tests (cherry picked from commit f554883) Co-authored-by: Malcolm Smith <smith@chaquo.com> Co-authored-by: Russell Keith-Magee <russell@keith-magee.com>
|
GH-124035 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.13 branch. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
…it tests (GH-124015) (#124035) gh-116622: Mock the passage of time in Android logcat rate limit tests (GH-124015) Mock the passage of time in Android logcat rate limit tests (cherry picked from commit f554883) Co-authored-by: Malcolm Smith <smith@chaquo.com> Co-authored-by: Russell Keith-Magee <russell@keith-magee.com>
The emulator on the buildbot is apparently subject to wild swings in performance, so the only way to make this test reliable is to take the test machine's real clock out of the equation.