test: add test for scheduling bug triggered by setting auto-balance to best-effort
#3889
Conversation
|
Important Review skippedAuto reviews are disabled on this repository. Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the You can disable this status message by setting the ✨ Finishing touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
marnixbouhuis
force-pushed
the
feat/test-best-effort-auto-balance-bug
branch
from
bcc23ef to
00b7c21
Compare
c3y1huang
force-pushed
the
feat/test-best-effort-auto-balance-bug
branch
from
00b7c21 to
60573f2
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Running: golangci-lint
scheduler/replica_scheduler_test.go:1371:31: QF1008: could remove embedded field "ObjectMeta" from selector (staticcheck)
replica.Spec.NodeID = node.ObjectMeta.Name
^
scheduler/replica_scheduler_test.go:1376:24: QF1008: could remove embedded field "ObjectMeta" from selector (staticcheck)
id := getDiskID(node.ObjectMeta.Name, strconv.FormatInt(index, 10))
^
2 issues:
* staticcheck: 2
@marnixbouhuis CI golangci-lint staticcheck failed. Could you help fix it?
| addDisks(node2, 1, node2disk1, TestDiskAvailableSize/2-100, false) // No replica | ||
| expectedDiskID := addDisks(node2, 2, node2disk2, TestDiskAvailableSize/2, false) // No replica, scheduler should choose this since it has the most storage available from the valid options. | ||
|
|
||
| // TODO: setting the next line to "best-effort" causes the test to fail. Removing this line bypasses the bug and makes the test pass. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Remove the TODO comment.
c3y1huang
force-pushed
the
feat/test-best-effort-auto-balance-bug
branch
2 times, most recently
from
6c61a9b to
138e969
Compare
…o best-effort Signed-off-by: Marnix Bouhuis <[email protected]>
derekbit
force-pushed
the
feat/test-best-effort-auto-balance-bug
branch
from
138e969 to
b75bafd
Compare
|
Hi @c3y1huang, noticed the branch was force pushed. Is this still an issue? 🙂 |
2 participants
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
this PR is not a fix, it's a test case to reproduce the bug described in longhorn/longhorn#11189
What this PR does / why we need it:
reproduce bug
Special notes for your reviewer:
test fails on purpose
Additional documentation or context