-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 119
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
rewrite flaky broker_deleted_recreated #4175
rewrite flaky broker_deleted_recreated #4175
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #4175 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 45.50% 45.49% -0.02%
==========================================
Files 270 270
Lines 19873 19873
==========================================
- Hits 9044 9041 -3
- Misses 10111 10113 +2
- Partials 718 719 +1 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
/retest-required |
1 similar comment
/retest-required |
70f852e
to
7844eae
Compare
/retest |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: maschmid, pierDipi The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
Fixes a flaky BrokerDeletedRecreated test,
the current implementation is not guaranteed to succeed, as it is not defined when the dataplane will reconfigure itself once the old trigger is deleted, so it may sometimes occur, that the new event is still sent to the fist sink, and not the new one.
This new implementation checks that eventually, a sequence is only being received by the other sink.
This approach requires new kinds of assertions about a sequence, instead of just individual events received/not received, hence there is a proposal for some kind of a DSL for assertions over such sequences...
I am not quite sure this kind of DSL is a good idea or if it would be useful in other scenarios, so I could also just rewrite this with just a single one-purpose function instead, if we think there's not much value in it...
Proposed Changes