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

Increase lib571 timeout from 3s to 30s #12013

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

icing
Copy link
Contributor

@icing icing commented Oct 3, 2023

  • 3s is too short for our CI, making this test fail occasionally
  • test usually experiences no delay run locally, so 30s wont hurt

- 3s is too short for our CI, making this test fail occasionally
- test usually experiences no delay run locally, so 30s wont hurt
@github-actions github-actions bot added the tests label Oct 3, 2023
@vszakats
Copy link
Member

vszakats commented Oct 3, 2023

Should we also re-enable 571 for these tests to see how they improve?:

diff --git a/appveyor.yml b/appveyor.yml
index 70da472de..ce36cfff9 100644
--- a/appveyor.yml
+++ b/appveyor.yml
@@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ environment:
       ENABLE_UNICODE: 'ON'
       HTTP_ONLY: 'OFF'
       TESTING: 'ON'
-      DISABLED_TESTS: '~571 !1139 !1501'
+      DISABLED_TESTS: '!1139 !1501'
       ADD_PATH: 'C:\msys64\usr\bin'
     - job_name: 'CMake, VS2022, Debug x64, no SSL, Static'
       APPVEYOR_BUILD_WORKER_IMAGE: 'Visual Studio 2022'
@@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ environment:
       ENABLE_UNICODE: 'OFF'
       HTTP_ONLY: 'OFF'
       TESTING: 'ON'
-      DISABLED_TESTS: '~571 !1139 !1501'
+      DISABLED_TESTS: '!1139 !1501'
       ADD_PATH: 'C:\msys64\usr\bin'
     - job_name: 'CMake, VS2022, Debug x64, no SSL, Static, HTTP only'
       APPVEYOR_BUILD_WORKER_IMAGE: 'Visual Studio 2022'

@icing
Copy link
Contributor Author

icing commented Oct 3, 2023

If this version runs green, I'll add it.

AppVeyor does not look cooperative.

@icing icing requested a review from bagder October 3, 2023 12:22
@icing
Copy link
Contributor Author

icing commented Oct 3, 2023

I believe we should merge this as it is.

@bagder bagder closed this in 8a940fd Oct 3, 2023
bagder added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 3, 2023
bagder added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 3, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants