roachtest: move schemachange/secondary-index-multi-version to new framework#113696
Conversation
rafiss
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewable status:
complete! 0 of 0 LGTMs obtained (waiting on @annrpom, @renatolabs, and @srosenberg)
pkg/cmd/roachtest/tests/secondary_indexes.go line 57 at r1 (raw file):
// Modify index data from that node. modifyData(1,
the old code took care to run this command on the node whose binary was upgraded. i don't think the new framework offers us that control. is that correct @renatolabs? it may be sufficient to just rely on randomization here.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
renatolabs
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
, but in the theme of efficiency, this is another test that I wish didn't spin up real VMs.
Nothing for this test to do right now, I think the better course of action is to set up a nightly "Local roachtest" run for tests like this and the validate-schema one recently ported.
Reviewable status:
complete! 1 of 0 LGTMs obtained (waiting on @annrpom, @rafiss, and @srosenberg)
pkg/cmd/roachtest/tests/secondary_indexes.go line 57 at r1 (raw file):
Previously, rafiss (Rafi Shamim) wrote…
the old code took care to run this command on the node whose binary was upgraded. i don't think the new framework offers us that control. is that correct @renatolabs? it may be sufficient to just rely on randomization here.
You can achieve the same goal with in the new test with:
upgradeContext := h.Context()
nextVersionDB := func() *gosql.DB {
upgrading := upgradeContext.ToVersion.Compare(upgradeContext.FromVersion) > 0
var node int
var db *gosql.DB
if upgrading {
node, db = h.RandomDB(rng, upgradeContext.ToVersion)
} else {
node, db = h.RandomDB(rng, upgradeContext.FromVersion) // downgrading
}
l.Printf("connecting to n%d", node)
return db
}
nextVersionDB().ExecContext(/* ... */)There's a recent higher level API being introduced in a WIP PR, but the above should achieve that goal with what exists today. I'll add a note to update this test once that's ready.
e62b82f to
cb48785
Compare
|
tftr! bors r+ |
|
Build failed (retrying...): |
|
bors r- |
|
Canceled. |
…mework The new framework has better testing and is the only one being maintained now. Release note: None
cb48785 to
f22d9e5
Compare
|
bors r+ |
|
Build succeeded: |
|
Encountered an error creating backports. Some common things that can go wrong:
You might need to create your backport manually using the backport tool. error creating merge commit from f22d9e5 to blathers/backport-release-23.2-113696: POST https://api.github.com/repos/cockroachdb/cockroach/merges: 409 Merge conflict [] you may need to manually resolve merge conflicts with the backport tool. Backport to branch 23.2.x failed. See errors above. 🦉 Hoot! I am a Blathers, a bot for CockroachDB. My owner is dev-inf. |
|
blathers backport 23.1 |
The new framework has better testing and is the only one being maintained now.
fixes #110534
Release note: None