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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Increase dependency review severity requirement and work around dataflow test failures #852
Increase dependency review severity requirement and work around dataflow test failures #852
Changes from 24 commits
16aa4f5f58ec40dbf6172babd5ee243de0153ba0497b2200c140c4eacf3ce318c8fb25df893eb61e9e65a0c59ce706e5990d0aba7470e93ec50f1a9bfb0e249e2ac2e867253ce1de461714d271e3dd7be035e85df76acf0c717030592eeb89c4c12aFile filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In #858 I'm trying to disable the configuration cache instead. That is what we did manually to fix the flakiness, so hopefully that also works here.
There is some connectedness here, too: https://docs.gradle.org/current/userguide/performance.html#additional_configuration_cache_benefits says that the configuration cache
Executes all tasks in parallel. So maybe disabling the configuration cache does more than just setting the max-workers to 1.This doc says that by default the configuration cache is off, but probably our CI setup enables it somehow.
That doc also says that
--parallelis off by default, but it's not clear to me what the relation betweenmax-workersandparallelis... Are the workers still used in parallel even ifparallelis off? Strange...But maybe the combination here is better. Anyways, there is more documentation here https://docs.gradle.org/current/userguide/configuration_cache.html and https://docs.gradle.org/current/userguide/performance.html#enable_configuration_cache
I also note that in typetools PRs 6422 and 6564 the
maxParallelForksoption is set for tests instead. There is some Azure-specific logic. It's again unclear what the relation betweenparallel forksandmax workersis.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
From #858 it seems to be the build cache, not the configuration cache, that is causing the problems. So is it better to only have 1 worker or have the build cache? Can you compare timing between the two fixes?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
sure, maybe let's wait the ci finishes and do rerun a few times. We can see the how long does the junit, non-junit and junit java 21 task takes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Both this PR and #858 take about 11h 42m... Let's just keep the solution here.
Can you update the .sh files and add a comment before why we're adding the flag, maybe that disabling the build cache would be an alternative.
If this closes issue #849, let's add a changelog entry. Alternatively, we can keep #849 open and see whether we fix the actual build issue within dataflow tests at some point.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sure.
I prefer to keep #849. I think the reason might be some task should be execute before
dataflow:busyexpression.