Fix testRetentionWhileSnapshotInProgress#48219
Merged
AthenaEryma merged 1 commit intoelastic:masterfrom Oct 18, 2019
Merged
Conversation
This test could fail for two reasons: 1) It hit a timeout for an `assertBusy`. This commit increases the timeout for that `assertBusy`. 2) The snapshot that was supposed to be blocked could, in fact, be successful. This is because a previous snapshot had been successfully been taken, and no new data had been added between the two snapshots. This means that no new segment files needed to be written for the new snapshot, so the block on data files was never triggered. This commit changes two things: First, it indexes some new data before taking the second snapshot (the one that needs to be blocked), and checks to ensure that the block is actually hit before continuing with the test.
Collaborator
|
Pinging @elastic/es-core-features (:Core/Features/ILM+SLM) |
AthenaEryma
added a commit
to AthenaEryma/elasticsearch
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 18, 2019
This test could fail for two reasons, both should be fixed by this PR: 1) It hit a timeout for an `assertBusy`. This commit increases the timeout for that `assertBusy`. 2) The snapshot that was supposed to be blocked could, in fact, be successful. This is because a previous snapshot had been successfully been taken, and no new data had been added between the two snapshots. This means that no new segment files needed to be written for the new snapshot, so the block on data files was never triggered. This commit changes two things: First, it indexes some new data before taking the second snapshot (the one that needs to be blocked), and second, checks to ensure that the block is actually hit before continuing with the test.
AthenaEryma
added a commit
to AthenaEryma/elasticsearch
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 18, 2019
This test could fail for two reasons, both should be fixed by this PR: 1) It hit a timeout for an `assertBusy`. This commit increases the timeout for that `assertBusy`. 2) The snapshot that was supposed to be blocked could, in fact, be successful. This is because a previous snapshot had been successfully been taken, and no new data had been added between the two snapshots. This means that no new segment files needed to be written for the new snapshot, so the block on data files was never triggered. This commit changes two things: First, it indexes some new data before taking the second snapshot (the one that needs to be blocked), and second, checks to ensure that the block is actually hit before continuing with the test.
AthenaEryma
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 18, 2019
This test could fail for two reasons, both should be fixed by this PR: 1) It hit a timeout for an `assertBusy`. This commit increases the timeout for that `assertBusy`. 2) The snapshot that was supposed to be blocked could, in fact, be successful. This is because a previous snapshot had been successfully been taken, and no new data had been added between the two snapshots. This means that no new segment files needed to be written for the new snapshot, so the block on data files was never triggered. This commit changes two things: First, it indexes some new data before taking the second snapshot (the one that needs to be blocked), and second, checks to ensure that the block is actually hit before continuing with the test.
AthenaEryma
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 18, 2019
This test could fail for two reasons, both should be fixed by this PR: 1) It hit a timeout for an `assertBusy`. This commit increases the timeout for that `assertBusy`. 2) The snapshot that was supposed to be blocked could, in fact, be successful. This is because a previous snapshot had been successfully been taken, and no new data had been added between the two snapshots. This means that no new segment files needed to be written for the new snapshot, so the block on data files was never triggered. This commit changes two things: First, it indexes some new data before taking the second snapshot (the one that needs to be blocked), and second, checks to ensure that the block is actually hit before continuing with the test.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
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.
This test could fail for two reasons, both should be fixed by this PR:
It hit a timeout for an
assertBusy. This commit increases thetimeout for that
assertBusy.The snapshot that was supposed to be blocked could, in fact, be
successful. This is because a previous snapshot had been successfully
been taken, and no new data had been added between the two snapshots.
This means that no new segment files needed to be written for the new
snapshot, so the block on data files was never triggered. This commit
changes two things: First, it indexes some new data before taking the
second snapshot (the one that needs to be blocked), and second,
checks to ensure that the block is actually hit before continuing
with the test.
This should fix #48159