Fix Eventually and EventuallyWithT to always run condition#1653
Closed
brackendawson wants to merge 1 commit intostretchr:masterfrom
Closed
Fix Eventually and EventuallyWithT to always run condition#1653brackendawson wants to merge 1 commit intostretchr:masterfrom
brackendawson wants to merge 1 commit intostretchr:masterfrom
Conversation
Regardless of how small tick is compared to waitFor.
Collaborator
Author
|
This might be a dupe of #1427 |
Collaborator
Author
|
The same fix is needed in |
Collaborator
Author
|
#1657 is a far better approach I think. |
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Summary
If
Eventuallywas called with aticklarger thanwaitFor, or atickvery slightly smaller thanwaitFor, or very smalltickandwaitForvalues, then a timing race can occur where the select statement falls into thewaitForcase first and theconditionfunction is never run.Changes
tickis very slightly smaller thanwaitFor, then the timer will never yield before the ticker.conditiononce before the loop and initialisetickin the for loop to(<-chan time.Time)(nil)so that we always runconditionstatically, then check its result, then runconditionbased on ticks.Motivation
Having a timing race where it is possible for condition to never be run causes our CI tests to flake, and is not how I think the user would expect Eventually can behave.
Related issues
Closes #1652