flaky test detected #6120
Closed
flaky test detected #6120
Conversation
This file contains 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Summary:
This PR addresses a flaky test identified using the NonDex tool. The tool detects flakiness in the following test:
org.drools.ancompiler.AlphaNetworkCompilerTest.testNodeHashingWith2LevelConditionsCheckFirstCondition[PATTERN_DSL]I am working within the
drools-alphanetwork-compilermodule. While I was able to identify the root cause of the flakiness, I couldn't fully resolve it due to a lack of context on the specific test and module. I reviewed a similar PR (#6119) that addresses a related issue in thedrools-model/drools-model-codegenmodule, but those fixes did not apply to this case.Steps taken:
Used NonDex to detect flaky behavior in the mentioned test.
Investigated potential fixes based on the approach from PR #6119 in another module, but they were not successful in this case.
Next steps:
I am open to continuing work on this issue and collaborating with maintainers. I would be happy to iterate on this PR with further feedback or additional context provided by the team.
Looking forward to your input!