Conversation
|
|
||
| [runners] | ||
| "local:docker" = { enabled = true } | ||
| "local:exec" = { enabled = true } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why is local:exec and cluster:k8s enabled?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Didn't think about it too much, but is there any particular reason this test couldn't be run in those circumstances?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would think that local:exec needs a different builder, the k8s one I do not know
|
|
||
| [[testcases]] | ||
| name = "ping" | ||
| instances = { min = 1, max = 10000, default = 1 } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why a max of 10000? How do you ever expect such numbers to be reached?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The thing I changed here was to lower the default.
I would guess if someone asked for 10000 they're actually expecting the system to break and want to see what happens when it does. Though I don't really know.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmmm ok. Seems odd, but plausible.
|
Wonderful to see this happening. Thanks @John-LittleBearLabs for working your way through this stack. Thanks @GlenDC for the review. Today we only test the TCP transport via the ping tests. Long term we will test:
With the above in mind, I think it makes sense to think of this pull request not as a one-off, but as a pull request that introduces an abstraction to https://github.com/libp2p/test-plans that enables us to test a variety of transports. I haven't put enough thoughts into the ideal abstraction, thus I am happy for input. What I have today:
|
|
@mxinden per your comment, A couple complications:
|
|
Thanks @John-LittleBearLabs for looking into this!
This sparked the following proposal #53. We would define the supported transports per version. If I am not mistaken, this should resolve the issues above. Does that sound reasonable? //CC @laurentsenta |
Yes I do see how that approach does solve this. I'll think about this for a bit, and then I think I'll have a question or two but should probably put it in that other PR. |
|
@John-LittleBearLabs Should this be closed in favor of #67 ? |
This one has the advantage that the last time I tried to run it it worked. That said, neither of these should get merged in while they still depend on Chinmay's private repo. So yeah, let's close this. |
No description provided.