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.

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

Many PRs blocked due to failing Taskcluster stability checks #14564

Closed
foolip opened this issue Dec 17, 2018 · 11 comments
Closed

Many PRs blocked due to failing Taskcluster stability checks #14564

foolip opened this issue Dec 17, 2018 · 11 comments

Comments

@foolip
Copy link
Member

foolip commented Dec 17, 2018

With #14165 resolved, Taskcluster was made a required check again on Dec 12. Since then, many PRs have become blocked on a Taskcluster failure:

wpt-chrome-dev-stability failures:

wpt-firefox-nightly-stability failures:

wpt-chrome-dev-stability + wpt-firefox-nightly-stability failures:

Some issues filed:

Authors of those PRs, please comment here to say whether the failure was related to your changes. If we have too many PRs blocked for unrelated reasons, we'll have to reconsider.

@foolip
Copy link
Member Author

foolip commented Dec 17, 2018

@jgraham

@jgraham
Copy link
Contributor

jgraham commented Dec 17, 2018

All but one seems to be an actual stability check failure, so if there's a problem here it isn't with Taskcluster as such, but with the stability checking.

@foolip
Copy link
Member Author

foolip commented Dec 17, 2018

The trouble would be if we have so much pre-existing flakiness that an unreasonable number of PRs would be blocked on pre-existing flakiness. I don't know where to draw the line, filed this issue to start collecting cases of it happening.

If it's too bad, I think we'd have to get our hands on data about which tests are most frequently affected and which of those are most flaky, and fix those.

@jgraham
Copy link
Contributor

jgraham commented Dec 17, 2018

Fixing flaky tests seems like a good idea for many reasons.

@foolip
Copy link
Member Author

foolip commented Dec 17, 2018

@lukebjerring @mdittmer for any given test that shows up as flaky in these PRs, is there a straightforward way to get a good guess answer to "was it already flaky?" from wpt.fyi? data? The historical red/green boxes hidden behind a button on wpt.fyi still interleave different versions so it's hard to tell why a test is alternating between passing and failing.

@frivoal
Copy link
Contributor

frivoal commented Dec 17, 2018

For #14551, I've restarted it a couple of times by pushing a rebased commit, and I believe that it was once reported as firefox flakiness, and twice as Chrome's. But I've never been able to reproduce locally, and while instability in a basic non animated layout reftest isn't totally impossible if the browser engine happens to have some kind of non deterministic bug, it is pretty unlikely. So I don't know what's causing this, but I'm pretty sure it isn't the test itself.

@foolip
Copy link
Member Author

foolip commented Dec 19, 2018

Self-assigning so that at least I'll check in later to see how many PRs are blocked on stability.

@lukebjerring
Copy link
Contributor

cc @Hexcles

@lukebjerring
Copy link
Contributor

Yes, we can now somewhat-reliably see existing flakiness in the last ten runs in staging:
https://staging.wpt.fyi/insights

@foolip
Copy link
Member Author

foolip commented Jun 10, 2019

This keeps being the main time sink when monitoring https://ecosystem-infra-rotation.appspot.com/, showing up as "blocked export PRs."

@lukebjerring @KyleJu do you think anything beyond the currently planned work on flakiness metadata will be needed to resolve this? More concretely, will the flakiness still show up as blocked exports and require us to add the metadata, or do we need to block Chromium CLs from landing? There's probably a tricky balance here between the amount of human involvement on our side vs. how much overhead there is for Chromium devs trying to get stuff landed and just using WPT because it's the default thing to do. Disincentives for using WPT would be bad :)

@foolip
Copy link
Member Author

foolip commented Oct 8, 2019

Closing this, work is underway to not block on known flakiness.

@foolip foolip closed this as completed Oct 8, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants