Closed
Bug 1331726
Opened 7 years ago
Closed 7 years ago
[e2e-tests] test_public_api_navigation is sporadically failing
Categories
(Socorro :: General, task)
Socorro
General
Tracking
(Not tracked)
RESOLVED
FIXED
People
(Reporter: mbrandt, Assigned: willkg)
References
()
Details
(Whiteboard: [e2e-tests])
test_public_api_navigation sporadically fails on both the stage and proud test jobs. https://github.com/mozilla/socorro/blob/master/e2e-tests/tests/test_api.py#L88 > e2e-tests/tests/test_api.py:88: in test_public_api_navigation > assert len(first_dates) == len(signatures) > E assert 4 == 5 > E + where 4 = len({'InvalidArrayIndex_CRASH | nsTArray_Impl<T>::ElementAt | nsCommandManager::CommandStatusChanged': '2016-09-26T11:49:1....so@0x4c859': '2016-01-14T16:14:02.753060+00:00', 'nsMsgDBView::OnDeleteCompleted': '2012-06-25T07:52:54.144540+00:00'}) > E + and 5 = len({'18e696b6-17ec-4761-b806-cb1bb2170110': 'nsMsgDBView::OnDeleteCompleted', '8f423b83-0170-48b4-b6d5-939242170111': 'In...-a8ed-47b4-a105-d00c62170110': 'libstagefright.so@0x4c859', 'c4f81c33-90c2-48d0-93de-b1d572170110': 'OOM | small', ...})
Reporter | ||
Comment 1•7 years ago
|
||
I've added a skip while we investigate the cause of the failure. https://github.com/mozilla/socorro/pull/3652
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•7 years ago
|
||
Adrian says that this is checking for something that may or may not be true, but there's no good way to know what the exact result should be. He suggests we change it to >= 1. Further, he pontificated about whether this check is important to the rest of the tests. We might want to break this big API test into multiple tests. I'll look into both of those today.
Comment 3•7 years ago
|
||
Commit pushed to master at https://github.com/mozilla/socorro https://github.com/mozilla/socorro/commit/21582a4de4d942d2eed9db1af4f0dac1a40f38a7 Fixes bug 1331726 - fix assertion in test_public_api_navigation (#3660) This fixes the assertion that we should have at least one signature first date for each signature--that turns out to not necessarily be the case. I changed it to make sure it's > 0. Hopefully we don't eventually find ourselves in a situation where it's 0, though I suspect that's possible. While doing that, I changed some variable names to make the code easier to read and I added comments to summarize what's about to happen so it's easier to verify the test is doing what it should be doing.
Updated•7 years ago
|
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 7 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•7 years ago
|
||
Going back to comment #2, we can't really break up the big test because it's carrying information it discovers forward to later steps. Breaking it up wouldn't be helpful.
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•