Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

disable tests unstable on Windows 11 #59135

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 15, 2021
Merged

disable tests unstable on Windows 11 #59135

merged 1 commit into from
Sep 15, 2021

Conversation

wfurt
Copy link
Member

@wfurt wfurt commented Sep 15, 2021

contributes to #58927

cc: @ViktorHofer

@wfurt wfurt requested a review from a team September 15, 2021 03:07
@wfurt wfurt self-assigned this Sep 15, 2021
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Sep 15, 2021

Tagging subscribers to this area: @dotnet/ncl, @vcsjones
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Issue Details

contributes to #58927

cc: @ViktorHofer

Author: wfurt
Assignees: wfurt
Labels:

area-System.Net.Security
Milestone: -

antonfirsov
antonfirsov reviewed Sep 15, 2021
View reviewed changes
src/libraries/System.Net.Security/tests/FunctionalTests/SslStreamStreamToStreamTest.cs
@@ -66,11 +67,18 @@ public static IEnumerable<object[]> SslStream_StreamToStream_Authentication_Succ
}
}

[Theory]
[ConditionalTheory]
Copy link
Member

@antonfirsov antonfirsov Sep 15, 2021 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why ConditionalTheory if there are no actual conditions passed to it? Is it needed for SkipTestException to work?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That's necessary for SkipTestException to work. The condition isn't statically defined but dynamically via throwing an Exception.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

BTW this is our own extension and that is also why Microsoft.DotNet.XUnitExtensions is needed @antonfirsov

@karelz
Copy link
Member

karelz commented Sep 15, 2021

Unrelated test failure in System.ComponentModel.EventBasedAsync.Tests:

    System.ComponentModel.EventBasedAsync.Tests.BackgroundWorkerTests.TestCancelAsync [FAIL]
      Cancellation in Main thread
      Expected: True
      Actual:   False
      Stack Trace:
        /_/src/libraries/System.ComponentModel.EventBasedAsync/tests/BackgroundWorkerTests.cs(126,0): at System.ComponentModel.EventBasedAsync.Tests.BackgroundWorkerTests.TestCancelAsync()
        /_/src/mono/System.Private.CoreLib/src/System/Reflection/RuntimeMethodInfo.cs(370,0): at System.Reflection.RuntimeMethodInfo.Invoke(Object obj, BindingFlags invokeAttr, Binder binder, Object[] parameters, CultureInfo culture)
    System.ComponentModel.EventBasedAsync.Tests.BackgroundWorkerTests.TestFinalization [SKIP]
      Condition(s) not met: "IsPreciseGcSupported"

Re-running failed leg

@ViktorHofer
Copy link
Member

@karelz thanks for pointing out the unrelated test failure. What would help even more is if you could file an issue for it (in this case one doesn't exist yet) so that this information isn't lost in the nirvana of merged PRs.

@ViktorHofer ViktorHofer merged commit 4177cd5 into dotnet:main Sep 15, 2021
@karelz karelz mentioned this pull request Sep 15, 2021
Closed
@karelz
Copy link
Member

karelz commented Sep 15, 2021

@ViktorHofer I am hesitant to file one off test failures as they are super-noisy in Networking for example (we close them right away) -- IMO people searching for it will find the PR and if they see it 2nd time, they can create issue ... optimizing for process ;)

@ViktorHofer
Copy link
Member

The official guidance has been to open issues for every unrelated test failure immediately so that area owners can look into the failures and triage them. In some cases such failures might just be noise (still our tests needs to handle that) but in other cases they might surface an underlying product issue.

@ericstj ericstj mentioned this pull request Sep 15, 2021
Merged
@karelz karelz added this to the 7.0.0 milestone Sep 22, 2021
@wfurt wfurt mentioned this pull request Sep 23, 2021
Closed
@ghost ghost locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Nov 3, 2021
@antonfirsov antonfirsov mentioned this pull request Dec 20, 2021
Closed
@wfurt wfurt mentioned this pull request Jan 4, 2022
Merged
@wfurt
Copy link
Member Author

wfurt commented Jan 7, 2022

/backport to release/6.0

@wfurt wfurt deleted the noTls13 branch January 7, 2022 23:33
@dotnet dotnet unlocked this conversation Jan 8, 2022
@wfurt
Copy link
Member Author

wfurt commented Jan 8, 2022

/backport to release/6.0

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jan 8, 2022

Started backporting to release/6.0: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/actions/runs/1670024962

@github-actions github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Jan 8, 2022
Merged
@ghost ghost locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Feb 7, 2022
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Reviewers

@ViktorHofer ViktorHofer ViktorHofer approved these changes

@antonfirsov antonfirsov antonfirsov left review comments

@karelz karelz karelz approved these changes

Assignees

@wfurt wfurt

Labels
area-System.Net.Security
Projects
None yet
Milestone
7.0.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@wfurt @karelz @ViktorHofer @antonfirsov