-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.7k
Integration tests refactoring #1880
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
Conversation
|
@MorrisJobke, thanks for your PR! By analyzing the history of the files in this pull request, we identified @PVince81, @SergioBertolinSG and @rullzer to be potential reviewers. |
Adapted sharing and external features, random failures in sharing:857 Added weddav related feature Removed forgotten leftovers
51a637c to
a642a40
Compare
Signed-off-by: Morris Jobke <[email protected]>
51f421e to
3dd5cdb
Compare
Signed-off-by: Roeland Jago Douma <[email protected]>
3dd5cdb to
bcd7a9a
Compare
|
Mmmm I have a feeling that failing test might be a timing issue... |
|
Ok indeed. Race condition. I can explain. server/build/integration/features/sharing-v1.feature Lines 895 to 924 in bcd7a9a
That sometimes fails. Pre:
Now if the following happens in the same second
Now at this point the share table will have 2 entries.
However since they have the same time the merging logic kicks in. Which takes the group share as primary share. Now if we flip the logic (which we could) then the reverse scenario would break (first group share then user share). Since we can't really compare id's properly here (abstracted away). The sharetime is really the only thing we have to go on. Now all that said and done. I really think this scenario is not one that will pop up in real life. And if it does. Well bad luck you have to rename again. So I propose to just add a sleep of a second before sharing it to the group. @MorrisJobke agreed? |
Signed-off-by: Roeland Jago Douma <[email protected]>
|
All good now from me. LGTM |
👍 I'm fine with this now 👍 |
@rullzer Please have a good review of this :)
And first let's see what the CI thinks about it.