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

Workflow failure: Run Acceptance Tests on main #274

Closed
pulumi-bot opened this issue Sep 18, 2024 · 4 comments · Fixed by #275
Closed

Workflow failure: Run Acceptance Tests on main #274

pulumi-bot opened this issue Sep 18, 2024 · 4 comments · Fixed by #275
Assignees
Labels
kind/engineering Work that is not visible to an external user p1 A bug severe enough to be the next item assigned to an engineer resolution/fixed This issue was fixed

Comments

@pulumi-bot
Copy link

Workflow Failure

Run Acceptance Tests on main has failed. See the list of failures below:

@pulumi-bot pulumi-bot added kind/engineering Work that is not visible to an external user needs-triage Needs attention from the triage team p1 A bug severe enough to be the next item assigned to an engineer labels Sep 18, 2024
@mjeffryes
Copy link
Member

Looks like the property tests may have caught an edge case:

--- FAIL: TestRapidDeepEqual (0.17s)
    putil_test.go:30: [rapid] OK, passed 100 tests (113.254702ms)
    putil_test.go:37: [rapid] failed after 33 tests: 
        	Error Trace:	/home/runner/work/pulumi-go-provider/pulumi-go-provider/putil/putil_test.go:42
        	            				/home/runner/go/pkg/mod/pgregory.net/[email protected]/engine.go:368
        	            				/home/runner/go/pkg/mod/pgregory.net/[email protected]/engine.go:268
        	            				/home/runner/go/pkg/mod/pgregory.net/[email protected]/engine.go:191
        	            				/home/runner/go/pkg/mod/pgregory.net/[email protected]/engine.go:118
        	            				/home/runner/work/pulumi-go-provider/pulumi-go-provider/putil/putil_test.go:37
        	Error:      	Should be false
        	Test:       	TestRapidDeepEqual
        
        To reproduce, specify -run="TestRapidDeepEqual" -rapid.failfile="testdata/rapid/TestRapidDeepEqual/TestRapidDeepEqual-20240918100423-13963.fail" (or -rapid.seed=949552452592648908)
        Failed test output:
    putil_test.go:41: [rapid] draw distinct: []resource.PropertyValue{resource.PropertyValue{V:resource.Output{Element:resource.PropertyValue{V:resource.Output{Element:resource.PropertyValue{V:interface {}(nil)}, Known:false, Secret:false, Dependencies:[]urn.URN{"", "&\n[?", "\x7f=&\u202c\x7fᾩ:AȺ~", "!aAὂ̥\ue007~a\x01?۵%", "*\"\u2005\ue005-a=\v\u2008䍨~ᶞ٣_"}}}, Known:true, Secret:true, Dependencies:[]urn.URN{"", "A#@\u008b%\x00$\u202e\U000e006a|ᛮ<:ፘ.᭴ो〦\U000fd7da!𞥋\v%\x7fڌ֝[A{ॊⅣ\nA1|_\u3000%a", "%"}}}, resource.PropertyValue{V:resource.Output{Element:resource.PropertyValue{V:interface {}(nil)}, Known:false, Secret:true, Dependencies:[]urn.URN{"", "̿A#꙲ .\u2029\u1680~;,*\ue000֍\ue001º`a貦", "_¦?!", "\u2007�", ";\U000e003e\r𞥋\\𞓶\x02٦Lj$=1𝛜ᾫ?", "{Aັ\\Dž", "̆aLjⅺ*~"}}}}
    putil_test.go:42: 
        	Error Trace:	/home/runner/work/pulumi-go-provider/pulumi-go-provider/putil/putil_test.go:42
        	            				/home/runner/go/pkg/mod/pgregory.net/[email protected]/engine.go:368
        	            				/home/runner/go/pkg/mod/pgregory.net/[email protected]/engine.go:232
        	            				/home/runner/go/pkg/mod/pgregory.net/[email protected]/engine.go:118
        	            				/home/runner/work/pulumi-go-provider/pulumi-go-provider/putil/putil_test.go:37
        	Error:      	Should be false
        	Test:       	TestRapidDeepEqual
FAIL

@mjeffryes
Copy link
Member

Formatting the failing inputs to make it a little easier to read:

[]resource.PropertyValue{
  resource.PropertyValue{
    V:resource.Output{
      Element:resource.PropertyValue{
        V:resource.Output{
          Element:resource.PropertyValue{ V:interface{ }(nil) },
          Known:false, 
          Secret:false, 
          Dependencies:[]urn.URN{
            "", "&\n[?", "\x7f=&\u202c\x7fᾩ:AȺ~", "!aAὂ̥\ue007~a\x01?۵%", "*\"\u2005\ue005-a=\v\u2008䍨~ᶞ٣_"
          }
        }
      },
      Known:true,
      Secret:true, 
      Dependencies:[]urn.URN{
        "", "A#@\u008b%\x00$\u202e\U000e006a|ᛮ<:ፘ.᭴ो〦\U000fd7da!𞥋\v%\x7fڌ֝[A{ॊⅣ\nA1|_\u3000%a", "%"
      }
    }
  },
  resource.PropertyValue{
    V:resource.Output{
      Element:resource.PropertyValue{
        V:interface { } (nil)
      },
      Known:false,
      Secret:true,
      Dependencies:[]urn.URN{
        "", "̿A#꙲ .\u2029\u1680~;,*\ue000֍\ue001º`a貦", "_¦?!", "\u2007�", ";\U000e003e\r𞥋\\𞓶\x02٦Lj$=1𝛜ᾫ?", "{Aັ\\Dž", "̆aLjⅺ*~"
      }
    }
  }
}

The test is supposed to be checking that the deepEqual function returns false for two distinct PropertyValue instances, but for some reason these returned equal

@mjeffryes mjeffryes removed the needs-triage Needs attention from the triage team label Sep 18, 2024
@iwahbe iwahbe self-assigned this Sep 19, 2024
@iwahbe
Copy link
Member

iwahbe commented Sep 19, 2024

It's a real edge case in the test, but the values are actually equal. The nested resource.Outputs throws off the test, but semantically they are equal.

iwahbe added a commit that referenced this issue Sep 19, 2024
Fixes #274

Issue #274 revealed a bug in the test, but not in the actual `DeepEquals` implementation.
iwahbe added a commit that referenced this issue Sep 19, 2024
Fixes #274

Issue #274 revealed a bug in the test, but not in the actual `DeepEquals` implementation.
@iwahbe iwahbe closed this as completed in c63d6b6 Sep 19, 2024
@pulumi-bot pulumi-bot added the resolution/fixed This issue was fixed label Sep 19, 2024
@pulumi-bot
Copy link
Author

This issue has been addressed in PR #275 and shipped in release v0.23.0.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
kind/engineering Work that is not visible to an external user p1 A bug severe enough to be the next item assigned to an engineer resolution/fixed This issue was fixed
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants