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

[ENH] Additional prop tests for GC. #3883

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

rohitcpbot
Copy link
Contributor

Properties checked -
a) versions after cutoff are deleted
b) versions before cutoff are preserved
c) versions in version file are ordered
d) min versions are retained

Description of changes

Summarize the changes made by this PR.

  • Improvements & Bug fixes
    • ...
  • New functionality
    • ...

Test plan

How are these changes tested?

  • Tests pass locally with pytest for python, yarn test for js, cargo test for rust

Documentation Changes

Are all docstrings for user-facing APIs updated if required? Do we need to make documentation changes in the docs repository?

Properties checked -
a) versions after cutoff are deleted
b) versions before cutoff are preserved
c) versions in version file are ordered
d) min versions are retained
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Mar 3, 2025

Reviewer Checklist

Please leverage this checklist to ensure your code review is thorough before approving

Testing, Bugs, Errors, Logs, Documentation

  • Can you think of any use case in which the code does not behave as intended? Have they been tested?
  • Can you think of any inputs or external events that could break the code? Is user input validated and safe? Have they been tested?
  • If appropriate, are there adequate property based tests?
  • If appropriate, are there adequate unit tests?
  • Should any logging, debugging, tracing information be added or removed?
  • Are error messages user-friendly?
  • Have all documentation changes needed been made?
  • Have all non-obvious changes been commented?

System Compatibility

  • Are there any potential impacts on other parts of the system or backward compatibility?
  • Does this change intersect with any items on our roadmap, and if so, is there a plan for fitting them together?

Quality

  • Is this code of a unexpectedly high quality (Readability, Modularity, Intuitiveness)


proptest! {
#[test]
fn test_k8s_integration_gc_version_properties(
Copy link
Collaborator

@HammadB HammadB Mar 3, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This should be reframed to not be a integration test. This logically can be tested entirely locally. This results in much faster prop test rollouts and then allows more cases to be tested.

fn test_k8s_integration_gc_version_properties(
num_records in 50..100usize,
num_batches in 2..5usize,
cutoff_hours in 0..24i64,
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This prop test is not really ideal. It randomly generates data and does a timing based approach. We should be use a state machine proptest - https://proptest-rs.github.io/proptest/proptest/state-machine.html. This will allow deterministic interleaving of the various events in the system.

Copy link
Collaborator

@HammadB HammadB left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The prop test we need is one that is a state machine over GC at some resolution, that interleaves the various events in the system that GC is dependent on. Then we can have the proptest go over these and test the various sequences. Additionally, we should not have it as an integration test as we can then make it much faster and increase our ability to explore many cases.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants