Skip to content

Skip the rebalance-sensitive consumer tests on 9.5 - #2816

Open
delthas wants to merge 1 commit into
development/9.5from
bugfix/BB-849/skip-rebalance-sensitive-lib-tests
Open

Skip the rebalance-sensitive consumer tests on 9.5#2816
delthas wants to merge 1 commit into
development/9.5from
bugfix/BB-849/skip-rebalance-sensitive-lib-tests

Conversation

@delthas

@delthas delthas commented Aug 19, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

The ledger drain on rebalance and fromOffset consumer tests were written against librdkafka 2.12 and do not hold on the 2.3.0 that BB-806 pinned and that 9.5 keeps.

A controlled A/B on CI, 25 runs per arm over the full lib suite, isolates the cause — the first two arms differ only in package.json and yarn.lock:

tree librdkafka jobs failed
17 Jul (c16e5ddb) 2.3.0 10/25 = 40%
17 Jul (d7f3303d) 2.12.0 0/25
HEAD (52b9510f) 2.3.0 20/25 = 80%
HEAD + librdkafka 2.12 2.12.0 0/25
HEAD + this change 2.3.0 0/25

The librdkafka upgrade lands on 9.6 instead — S3C-11389 raises Federation's message-format pin, which removes the constraint that forced the downgrade in the first place. So this skips the two describes on 9.5 rather than touching the dependency.

Two things worth knowing for later:

  • The skip cascades into 9.6, so the unskip has to land together with the upgrade there.
  • The concurrency and rebalance describes are deliberately left enabled. They accounted for failures in 2 of the 25 pre-skip runs, so 9.5 may still see occasional flakiness from them.

Issue: BB-849

The ledger drain and fromOffset consumer tests were written against
librdkafka 2.12 and do not hold on the 2.3.0 that BB-806 pinned and that
9.5 keeps: a controlled CI A/B over 25 runs per arm measured 40% job
failures on the tree at the time of the downgrade and 80% at current
HEAD, against 0/25 on the same trees with librdkafka 2.12.

The librdkafka upgrade lands on 9.6 instead, so skip these two describes
here rather than change the dependency, and unskip them once 9.6 carries
the upgrade.

Verified over 25 CI runs of this branch: 51 passing, 3 pending, no
failures. Two of the 25 pre-skip runs also failed in the concurrency and
rebalance describes, which this change leaves enabled.

Issue: BB-849
@bert-e

bert-e commented Aug 19, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Hello delthas,

My role is to assist you with the merge of this
pull request. Please type @bert-e help to get information
on this process, or consult the user documentation.

Available options
name description privileged authored
/after_pull_request Wait for the given pull request id to be merged before continuing with the current one.
/bypass_author_approval Bypass the pull request author's approval
/bypass_build_status Bypass the build and test status
/bypass_commit_size Bypass the check on the size of the changeset TBA
/bypass_incompatible_branch Bypass the check on the source branch prefix
/bypass_jira_check Bypass the Jira issue check
/bypass_peer_approval Bypass the pull request peers' approval
/bypass_leader_approval Bypass the pull request leaders' approval
/approve Instruct Bert-E that the author has approved the pull request. ✍️
/create_pull_requests Allow the creation of integration pull requests.
/create_integration_branches Allow the creation of integration branches.
/no_octopus Prevent Wall-E from doing any octopus merge and use multiple consecutive merge instead
/unanimity Change review acceptance criteria from one reviewer at least to all reviewers
/wait Instruct Bert-E not to run until further notice.
Available commands
name description privileged
/help Print Bert-E's manual in the pull request.
/status Print Bert-E's current status in the pull request.
/clear Remove all comments from Bert-E from the history TBA
/retry Re-start a fresh build TBA
/build Re-start a fresh build TBA
/force_reset Delete integration branches & pull requests, and restart merge process from the beginning.
/reset Try to remove integration branches unless there are commits on them which do not appear on the source branch.

Status report is not available.

@codecov

codecov Bot commented Aug 19, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 75.75%. Comparing base (52b9510) to head (fe1b973).

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph
see 1 file with indirect coverage changes

Components Coverage Δ
Bucket Notification 80.27% <ø> (ø)
Core Library 81.92% <ø> (-0.02%) ⬇️
Ingestion 70.09% <ø> (ø)
Lifecycle 80.46% <ø> (ø)
Oplog Populator 85.83% <ø> (ø)
Replication 62.01% <ø> (ø)
Bucket Scanner 85.76% <ø> (ø)
@@                 Coverage Diff                 @@
##           development/9.5    #2816      +/-   ##
===================================================
- Coverage            75.76%   75.75%   -0.01%     
===================================================
  Files                  200      200              
  Lines                13922    13922              
===================================================
- Hits                 10548    10547       -1     
- Misses                3364     3365       +1     
  Partials                10       10              
Flag Coverage Δ
api:retry 9.10% <ø> (ø)
api:routes 8.87% <ø> (ø)
bucket-scanner 85.76% <ø> (ø)
ft_test:queuepopulator 10.98% <ø> (ø)
ingestion 12.26% <ø> (ø)
lib 8.81% <ø> (-0.02%) ⬇️
lifecycle 19.29% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
notification 1.02% <ø> (ø)
oplogPopulator 0.13% <ø> (ø)
replication 18.84% <ø> (ø)
unit 54.88% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@scality scality deleted a comment from bert-e Aug 19, 2026
@bert-e

bert-e commented Aug 19, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Waiting for approval

The following approvals are needed before I can proceed with the merge:

  • the author

  • 2 peers

@delthas
delthas requested review from a team, DarkIsDude and francoisferrand August 19, 2026 15:05

@francoisferrand francoisferrand left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Let's not merge just yet, still trying to confirm the lib upgrade plan
(depending on it, maybe we can just revert in the 9.6 waterflow commit?)

Comment thread tests/functional/lib/BackbeatConsumer.js
@delthas

delthas commented Aug 20, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Created the waterflow revert commit on w/9.6/bugfix/BB-849/skip-rebalance-sensitive-lib-tests

Comment thread tests/functional/lib/BackbeatConsumer.js
@scality scality deleted a comment from bert-e Aug 20, 2026
@bert-e

bert-e commented Aug 20, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Request integration branches

Waiting for integration branch creation to be requested by the user.

To request integration branches, please comment on this pull request with the following command:

/create_integration_branches

Alternatively, the /approve and /create_pull_requests commands will automatically
create the integration branches.

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.

4 participants