-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
bank*: distribute initial balances uniformly #99
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
Conversation
@ligurio Please, look if time permits. My reason to fix it is just because I don't want to see those periodical fails. I tested it manually using CI. The results are here (those logs will be expired after some time). However I tried cluster testing as well and persisted logs and artifacts in #98. Don't be confused by another commit hash: the code is the same, I just updated the commit message. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks! I like your idea to distribute balances uniformly.
6e4f54a
to
5149408
Compare
Re-verified after review fixes: results. |
c9761c5
to
ba86d91
Compare
Before this commit the initial distribution was the following: first account has `total-amount` balances, other 9 ones have zero balance. From time to time is appears that there are no attempts to transfer from the first account. It means that all transfers are marked as failed and the history analysis reports fail. Even when there are some successful transfers, there are many attempts to transfer from an account with zero balance: those transfers are useless in terms of tarantool testing. This commit changes the initial distribution to the uniform one and resolves the problems, which are described above. See the linked issue for details. Aside of the problematic bank-lua I changed other banking tests in the same way to unify the approach. How each test is changed: * bank-lua: [100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0] -> [10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10]. * bank-multitable-lua: the test already distributes initial balances uniformly, but hardcodes balance value. Now it is deduced from the `total-amount` parameter. * bank: same as bank-lua. * bank-multitable: same as bank-lua. 'bank' and 'bank-multitable' fixes are blind, because they're disabled. See #83. 'bank-lua' and 'bank-multitable-lua' are passed in a manual run. 'bank-lua' gives 2-3 failed transfers of ~40 ones. Before it was like 5-15 *successful* ones of 30-40. (I have no representative statistics, just looked over several runs in CI, but the numbers looks expected.) Fixes #94
Re-verified after review fixes: results. |
Before this commit the initial distribution was the following: first
account has
total-amount
balances, other 9 ones have zero balance.From time to time is appears that there are no attempts to transfer from
the first account. It means that all transfers are marked as failed and
the history analysis reports fail.
Even when there are some successful transfers, there are many attempts
to transfer from an account with zero balance: those transfers are
useless in terms of tarantool testing.
This commit changes the initial distribution to the uniform one and
resolves the problems, which are described above. See the linked issue
for details.
Aside of the problematic bank-lua I changed other banking tests in the
same way to unify the approach. How each test is changed:
uniformly, but hardcodes balance value. Now it is deduced from the
total-amount
parameter.'bank' and 'bank-multitable' fixes are blind, because they're disabled.
See #83.
'bank-lua' and 'bank-multitable-lua' are passed in a manual run.
'bank-lua' gives 2-3 failed transfers of ~40 ones. Before it was like
5-15 successful ones of 30-40. (I have no representative statistics,
just looked over several runs in CI, but the numbers looks expected.)
Fixes #94