-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 389
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
🐛 Fix possible leak (W.i.P.) #3194
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
Hi @cupakob. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a kcp-dev member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
/ok-to-test |
cc8dff6
to
7984698
Compare
/retest |
1 similar comment
/retest |
Hi @cupakob, I'm not sure this is a flaky test. Have you verified that the same test works for you locally? |
nope, in the log output I dont really see a problem related to my changes i will run it localy, maybe I will see more |
c47050d
to
65b1d3a
Compare
65b1d3a
to
2e4619f
Compare
6356b7c
to
431436b
Compare
/retest |
cf1b7c8
to
59a7301
Compare
48fc90e
to
0a7edf5
Compare
8506642
to
d84b8d9
Compare
@embik currently i don't have any changes in the branch (all changes are commented), but the tests are still failing...it looks like flaky tests somehow, right? |
I think you're right, the test occasionally flakes. You can see in older runs that it used to fail sometimes before this PR. Apologies for the confusion caused by it. I think the consistent failures we saw earlier in this PR had a differentiation though: They ran into the 2h timeout, so those jobs were running for much longer. The flakes are usually happening within the first 15-20 minutes. |
all good, not a problem at all ;)
okay, but I don't have an explination, how the defer function, where I close the file, can cause a 2h timeout...any hints are welcome. |
/retest |
56c5b82
to
ae829c7
Compare
@cupakob is this blocked on anything? Anything we can help with? |
Not closing os.File must not, but may lead to a leak. It is better to close it manually instead of waiting for the next GC to be triggered Signed-off-by: Atanas Alexandrov <sirakov@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Atanas Alexandrov <sirakov@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Atanas Alexandrov <sirakov@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Atanas Alexandrov <sirakov@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Atanas Alexandrov <sirakov@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Atanas Alexandrov <sirakov@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Atanas Alexandrov <sirakov@gmail.com>
ae829c7
to
b65473b
Compare
@cupakob: The following test failed, say
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
Not closing os.File must not, but may lead to a leak. It is better to close it manually instead of waiting for the next GC to be triggered
Summary
Related issue(s)
Fixes #
Release Notes