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

test: double timeout in tls-wrap-timeout.js #1201

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

test: double timeout in tls-wrap-timeout.js #1201

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

indutny
Copy link
Member

@indutny indutny commented Mar 19, 2015

The test is timing dependent, ensure that it won't fail on the busy CI
boxes.

Fix: #1200

@indutny
test: double timeout in tls-wrap-timeout.js
6c5485c 
The test is timing dependent, ensure that it won't fail on the busy CI
boxes.

Fix: nodejs#1200
@indutny
Copy link
Member Author

indutny commented Mar 19, 2015

CI: https://jenkins-iojs.nodesource.com/job/iojs+any-pr+multi/336/

@indutny
Copy link
Member Author

indutny commented Mar 19, 2015

cc @jbergstroem

@indutny indutny mentioned this pull request Mar 19, 2015
Closed
@rvagg
Copy link
Member

rvagg commented Mar 19, 2015

fwiw I've tried to make it so that only one CI run is being done on a single box at a time, the only exception being the containers jobs but they aren't in this mix yet

@jbergstroem
Copy link
Member

I think the only timeout you need to raise is the connecting socket.

Anyway, you got my LGTM since it'll fix the problem.

indutny added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 19, 2015
@indutny
test: double timeout in tls-wrap-timeout.js
3038b8e 
The test is timing dependent, ensure that it won't fail on the busy CI
boxes.

Fix: #1200
PR-URL: #1201
Reviewed-By: Johan Bergström <bugs@bergstroem.nu>
@indutny
Copy link
Member Author

indutny commented Mar 19, 2015

Landed in 3038b8e, thank you!

@indutny indutny closed this Mar 19, 2015
@indutny indutny deleted the fix/gh-1200 branch March 19, 2015 04:47
@rvagg rvagg mentioned this pull request Mar 19, 2015
Closed
@aliscco aliscco mentioned this pull request Apr 24, 2023
Open
@snyk-bot snyk-bot mentioned this pull request Apr 24, 2023
Open
This was referenced Apr 24, 2023
Open
Open
Open
This was referenced Apr 26, 2023
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
This was referenced Apr 27, 2023
Open
Open
Open
@snyk-bot snyk-bot mentioned this pull request Apr 27, 2023
Open
@aliscco aliscco mentioned this pull request Apr 28, 2023
Open
@snyk-bot snyk-bot mentioned this pull request Apr 28, 2023
Open
@leonardoadame leonardoadame mentioned this pull request Jul 9, 2023
Open
@leonardoadame leonardoadame mentioned this pull request Aug 4, 2023
Open
@aliscco aliscco mentioned this pull request Nov 30, 2023
Open
This was referenced Nov 30, 2023
Open
Open
This was referenced Nov 30, 2023
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
This was referenced Dec 1, 2023
Open
Open
This was referenced Dec 2, 2023
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
This was referenced Dec 2, 2023
Open
Open
Open
@aliscco aliscco mentioned this pull request Dec 3, 2023
Open
@leonardoadame leonardoadame mentioned this pull request Dec 3, 2023
Open
@aliscco aliscco mentioned this pull request Dec 3, 2023
Open
This was referenced Dec 3, 2023
Open
Open
@snyk-io snyk-io bot mentioned this pull request Oct 21, 2024
Open
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@indutny @rvagg @jbergstroem