Randomize test ports #6915
Merged
Randomize test ports #6915
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
stephanos
force-pushed
the
onebox-random-ports
branch
5 times, most recently
from
d577e22 to
a73b5f8
Compare
stephanos
force-pushed
the
onebox-random-ports
branch
from
a73b5f8 to
0dc1437
Compare
bergundy
approved these changes
Dec 2, 2024
tests/testcore/onebox.go
Outdated
| @@ -949,3 +893,15 @@ func (c *TemporalImpl) overrideDynamicConfig(t *testing.T, name dynamicconfig.Ke | |||
| t.Cleanup(cleanup) | |||
| return cleanup | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| func portFromAddress(addr string) httpPort { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add must to clarify that this panics.
Suggested change
| func portFromAddress(addr string) httpPort { | |
| func mustPortFromAddress(addr string) httpPort { |
tests/testcore/test_cluster.go
Outdated
| // allocate ports | ||
| pp := temporalite.NewPortProvider() | ||
| hostsByProtocolByService := map[transferProtocol]map[primitives.ServiceName]static.Hosts{ | ||
| grpcProtocol: map[primitives.ServiceName]static.Hosts{ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| grpcProtocol: map[primitives.ServiceName]static.Hosts{ | |
| grpcProtocol: { |
tests/testcore/test_cluster.go
Outdated
| pp := temporalite.NewPortProvider() | ||
| hostsByProtocolByService := map[transferProtocol]map[primitives.ServiceName]static.Hosts{ | ||
| grpcProtocol: map[primitives.ServiceName]static.Hosts{ | ||
| primitives.FrontendService: static.Hosts{All: makeAddresses(pp, options.FrontendConfig.NumFrontendHosts)}, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| primitives.FrontendService: static.Hosts{All: makeAddresses(pp, options.FrontendConfig.NumFrontendHosts)}, | |
| primitives.FrontendService: {All: makeAddresses(pp, options.FrontendConfig.NumFrontendHosts)}, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ha, I wonder why (my) Goland doesn't highlight this as redundant.
Merged
stephanos
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 3, 2024
## What changed? <!-- Describe what has changed in this PR --> Follow-up to #6915 - making sure clusters are started one-by-one. ## Why? <!-- Tell your future self why have you made these changes --> To make sure there are no port allocation conflicts for parallel cluster starts. ## How did you test it? <!-- How have you verified this change? Tested locally? Added a unit test? Checked in staging env? --> ## Potential risks <!-- Assuming the worst case, what can be broken when deploying this change to production? --> It can slow down functional test execution. I haven't measured yet how long a cluster start takes. If it turns out to be too long, I can go back to the drawing board on this. ## Documentation <!-- Have you made sure this change doesn't falsify anything currently stated in `docs/`? If significant new behavior is added, have you described that in `docs/`? --> ## Is hotfix candidate? <!-- Is this PR a hotfix candidate or does it require a notification to be sent to the broader community? (Yes/No) -->
stephanos
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 12, 2024
## What changed? <!-- Describe what has changed in this PR --> New freeport implementation; taken from battle-tested Temporal projects. ## Why? <!-- Tell your future self why have you made these changes --> Follow-up to #6915; making it simpler and more robust. ## How did you test it? <!-- How have you verified this change? Tested locally? Added a unit test? Checked in staging env? --> - [x] works on Linux (ie CI) - [x] works on Mac (ie my computer) [First CI run](https://github.com/temporalio/temporal/actions/runs/12269035797/attempts/1?pr=6966), `TestNexusCallbackReplicated` failed with `Error while dialing: dial tcp 127.0.0.1:33279: connect: connection refused`. Looks like there was an unrelated data race (that I've reported to Slack). [Second CI run](https://github.com/temporalio/temporal/actions/runs/12269035797/attempts/2?pr=6966) passed. [Third CI run](https://github.com/temporalio/temporal/actions/runs/12269035797?pr=6966), Versioning suite seems to have [timed out](https://github.com/temporalio/temporal/actions/runs/12269035797/job/34233452135?pr=6966#step:8:966). Unrelated. So it seems to be fine from a random port perspective. ## Potential risks <!-- Assuming the worst case, what can be broken when deploying this change to production? --> ## Documentation <!-- Have you made sure this change doesn't falsify anything currently stated in `docs/`? If significant new behavior is added, have you described that in `docs/`? --> ## Is hotfix candidate? <!-- Is this PR a hotfix candidate or does it require a notification to be sent to the broader community? (Yes/No) -->
stephanos
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 20, 2024
## What changed? <!-- Describe what has changed in this PR --> New freeport implementation; taken from battle-tested Temporal projects. ## Why? <!-- Tell your future self why have you made these changes --> Follow-up to #6915; making it simpler and more robust. ## How did you test it? <!-- How have you verified this change? Tested locally? Added a unit test? Checked in staging env? --> - [x] works on Linux (ie CI) - [x] works on Mac (ie my computer) [First CI run](https://github.com/temporalio/temporal/actions/runs/12269035797/attempts/1?pr=6966), `TestNexusCallbackReplicated` failed with `Error while dialing: dial tcp 127.0.0.1:33279: connect: connection refused`. Looks like there was an unrelated data race (that I've reported to Slack). [Second CI run](https://github.com/temporalio/temporal/actions/runs/12269035797/attempts/2?pr=6966) passed. [Third CI run](https://github.com/temporalio/temporal/actions/runs/12269035797?pr=6966), Versioning suite seems to have [timed out](https://github.com/temporalio/temporal/actions/runs/12269035797/job/34233452135?pr=6966#step:8:966). Unrelated. So it seems to be fine from a random port perspective. ## Potential risks <!-- Assuming the worst case, what can be broken when deploying this change to production? --> ## Documentation <!-- Have you made sure this change doesn't falsify anything currently stated in `docs/`? If significant new behavior is added, have you described that in `docs/`? --> ## Is hotfix candidate? <!-- Is this PR a hotfix candidate or does it require a notification to be sent to the broader community? (Yes/No) -->
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What changed?
Instead of using fixed ports in functional tests, use randomized ports.
The nested map is ... not pretty but effective. Happy to throw more design at it, if needed.
Why?
When starting two or more clusters (e.g. xdc tests), different hosts have to be used for the ports not to collide; which causes issues on at least MacOS.
How did you test it?
Existing tests.
Potential risks
Documentation
Is hotfix candidate?