[Toybox] [PATCH] timeout.test: reduce flake.

[enh]

no hurry... it's taken us this long to spot any flake, so it'll probably be
as long again before we see it again even if we do nothing!

On Fri, Apr 12, 2024, 09:54 Rob Landley <rob at landley.net> wrote:

> Catching up. (I let stuff pile up preparing for the release and then took a
> couple days off, and now I'm at texas linuxfest doing sleep deprived talk
> prep
> for tomorrow...)
>
> On 4/8/24 15:28, enh via Toybox wrote:
> > A (presumably overloaded) CI server saw the `exit 0` test time out.
> > Given that several of these tests should just fail immediately,
> > having a huge timeout isn't even a bad thing --- if we had a bug
> > that caused us to report the correct status, but not until the
> > timeout had _also_ expired, this would make that failure glaringly
> > obvious.
> >
> > Aren't the other tests with 0.1s timeouts potentially flaky? Yes,
> > obviously, but I'll worry about those if/when we see them in real
> > life? (Because increasing those timeouts _would_ increase overall
> > test time.)
>
> Yes it should never happen, but 11 minutes seems like a footgun.
>
> I bumped it up to 1 second (10 times as long as before). If you see it
> again I
> can bump it to 5 seconds, but much beyond 1 second and the "timeout -v .1
> sleep
> 3" test later on gets flaky, as does:
>
> toyonly testcmd "-i" \
>   "-i 1 sh -c 'for i in .25 .50 2; do sleep \$i; echo hello; done'" \
>   "hello\nhello\n" "" ""
>
> Rob
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.landley.net/pipermail/toybox-landley.net/attachments/20240412/a8931b06/attachment.htm>