Fix aggs test failures #74750
Merged
Fix aggs test failures #74750
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The tests for the debugging information in the filters aggregation where too specific for the kind of randomization we run with. They asserted that the indices contained only a single segment which is *usually* true, but our test randomization framework sometimes emit many segmented indices, just to exercise the code. That's a good thing. But the tests had a wrong assertion. This swaps the assertion from `equalTo(1)` to `greaterThanOrEqualTo(1)`. Closes elastic#74677
|
I ran this a few more times and it failed locally. Checking! |
|
Found another overly specific assertion - true 999/1000 runs. Fixed it too. |
nik9000
added a commit
to nik9000/elasticsearch
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 30, 2021
The tests for the debugging information in the filters aggregation where too specific for the kind of randomization we run with. They asserted that the indices contained only a single segment which is *usually* true, but our test randomization framework sometimes emit many segmented indices, just to exercise the code. That's a good thing. But the tests had a wrong assertion. This swaps the assertion from `equalTo(1)` to `greaterThanOrEqualTo(1)`. Closes elastic#74677
nik9000
added
auto-backport
nik9000
added a commit
to nik9000/elasticsearch
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 30, 2021
The tests for the debugging information in the filters aggregation where too specific for the kind of randomization we run with. They asserted that the indices contained only a single segment which is *usually* true, but our test randomization framework sometimes emit many segmented indices, just to exercise the code. That's a good thing. But the tests had a wrong assertion. This swaps the assertion from `equalTo(1)` to `greaterThanOrEqualTo(1)`. Closes elastic#74677
nik9000
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 30, 2021
The tests for the debugging information in the filters aggregation where too specific for the kind of randomization we run with. They asserted that the indices contained only a single segment which is *usually* true, but our test randomization framework sometimes emit many segmented indices, just to exercise the code. That's a good thing. But the tests had a wrong assertion. This swaps the assertion from `equalTo(1)` to `greaterThanOrEqualTo(1)`. Closes #74677 Co-authored-by: Elastic Machine <[email protected]>
nik9000
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 30, 2021
The tests for the debugging information in the filters aggregation where too specific for the kind of randomization we run with. They asserted that the indices contained only a single segment which is *usually* true, but our test randomization framework sometimes emit many segmented indices, just to exercise the code. That's a good thing. But the tests had a wrong assertion. This swaps the assertion from `equalTo(1)` to `greaterThanOrEqualTo(1)`. Closes #74677 Co-authored-by: Elastic Machine <[email protected]>
nik9000
added a commit
to nik9000/elasticsearch
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 6, 2021
The tests for the debugging information in the filters aggregation where too specific for the kind of randomization we run with. We mostly fixed them in elastic#74750 by replacing `equalTo(1)` with `greaterThanOrEqualTo(1)`. But we missed a spot. In all fairness, we ran the test a couple thousand times and it didn't fail. But letting the ES build chew on it gets many many many thousands of executions over a month. So it found the spot. This performs one additional `equalTo(1)` to `greaterThanOrEqualTo(1)` replacement. Closes elastic#74936
nik9000
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 6, 2021
The tests for the debugging information in the filters aggregation where too specific for the kind of randomization we run with. We mostly fixed them in #74750 by replacing `equalTo(1)` with `greaterThanOrEqualTo(1)`. But we missed a spot. In all fairness, we ran the test a couple thousand times and it didn't fail. But letting the ES build chew on it gets many many many thousands of executions over a month. So it found the spot. This performs one additional `equalTo(1)` to `greaterThanOrEqualTo(1)` replacement. Closes #74936
elasticsearchmachine
pushed a commit
to elasticsearchmachine/elasticsearch
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 6, 2021
The tests for the debugging information in the filters aggregation where too specific for the kind of randomization we run with. We mostly fixed them in elastic#74750 by replacing `equalTo(1)` with `greaterThanOrEqualTo(1)`. But we missed a spot. In all fairness, we ran the test a couple thousand times and it didn't fail. But letting the ES build chew on it gets many many many thousands of executions over a month. So it found the spot. This performs one additional `equalTo(1)` to `greaterThanOrEqualTo(1)` replacement. Closes elastic#74936
elasticsearchmachine
pushed a commit
to elasticsearchmachine/elasticsearch
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 6, 2021
The tests for the debugging information in the filters aggregation where too specific for the kind of randomization we run with. We mostly fixed them in elastic#74750 by replacing `equalTo(1)` with `greaterThanOrEqualTo(1)`. But we missed a spot. In all fairness, we ran the test a couple thousand times and it didn't fail. But letting the ES build chew on it gets many many many thousands of executions over a month. So it found the spot. This performs one additional `equalTo(1)` to `greaterThanOrEqualTo(1)` replacement. Closes elastic#74936
nik9000
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 7, 2021
The tests for the debugging information in the filters aggregation where too specific for the kind of randomization we run with. We mostly fixed them in #74750 by replacing `equalTo(1)` with `greaterThanOrEqualTo(1)`. But we missed a spot. In all fairness, we ran the test a couple thousand times and it didn't fail. But letting the ES build chew on it gets many many many thousands of executions over a month. So it found the spot. This performs one additional `equalTo(1)` to `greaterThanOrEqualTo(1)` replacement. Closes #74936 Co-authored-by: Nik Everett <[email protected]>
nik9000
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 7, 2021
The tests for the debugging information in the filters aggregation where too specific for the kind of randomization we run with. We mostly fixed them in #74750 by replacing `equalTo(1)` with `greaterThanOrEqualTo(1)`. But we missed a spot. In all fairness, we ran the test a couple thousand times and it didn't fail. But letting the ES build chew on it gets many many many thousands of executions over a month. So it found the spot. This performs one additional `equalTo(1)` to `greaterThanOrEqualTo(1)` replacement. Closes #74936 Co-authored-by: Nik Everett <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The tests for the debugging information in the filters aggregation where
too specific for the kind of randomization we run with. They asserted
that the indices contained only a single segment which is usually
true, but our test randomization framework sometimes emit many segmented
indices, just to exercise the code. That's a good thing. But the tests
had a wrong assertion. This swaps the assertion from
equalTo(1)togreaterThanOrEqualTo(1).Closes #74677