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

Ignore tx_flush_fails in tests #4964

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Dec 17, 2024

Conversation

pb8o
Copy link
Contributor

@pb8o pb8o commented Dec 17, 2024

Changes

...

Reason

...

License Acceptance

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under
the terms of the Apache 2.0 license. For more information on following Developer
Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check
CONTRIBUTING.md.

PR Checklist

  • I have read and understand CONTRIBUTING.md.
  • I have run tools/devtool checkstyle to verify that the PR passes the
    automated style checks.
  • I have described what is done in these changes, why they are needed, and
    how they are solving the problem in a clear and encompassing way.
  • I have updated any relevant documentation (both in code and in the docs)
    in the PR.
  • I have mentioned all user-facing changes in CHANGELOG.md.
  • If a specific issue led to this PR, this PR closes the issue.
  • When making API changes, I have followed the
    Runbook for Firecracker API changes.
  • I have tested all new and changed functionalities in unit tests and/or
    integration tests.
  • I have linked an issue to every new TODO.

  • This functionality cannot be added in rust-vmm.

In commit 9364472 we started to ignore
tx_read_fails/tx_write_fails, but should also have included
tx_flush_fails.

Add it here.

Fixes: 9364472

Signed-off-by: Pablo Barbáchano <[email protected]>
@pb8o pb8o added Priority: Low Indicates that an issue or pull request should be resolved behind issues or pull requests labelled ` Status: Awaiting author Indicates that an issue or pull request requires author action python Pull requests that update Python code labels Dec 17, 2024
@pb8o pb8o self-assigned this Dec 17, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 17, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 83.93%. Comparing base (89ca781) to head (f1eada0).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #4964   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   83.93%   83.93%           
=======================================
  Files         248      248           
  Lines       27791    27791           
=======================================
  Hits        23327    23327           
  Misses       4464     4464           
Flag Coverage Δ
5.10-c5n.metal 84.51% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m5n.metal 84.49% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m6a.metal 83.78% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m6g.metal 80.61% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m6i.metal 84.49% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m7g.metal 80.61% <ø> (ø)
6.1-c5n.metal 84.51% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
6.1-m5n.metal 84.49% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m6a.metal 83.78% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m6g.metal 80.61% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m6i.metal 84.49% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m7g.metal 80.61% <ø> (ø)

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@pb8o pb8o added Status: Awaiting review Indicates that a pull request is ready to be reviewed and removed Status: Awaiting author Indicates that an issue or pull request requires author action labels Dec 17, 2024
@pb8o pb8o merged commit 56306be into firecracker-microvm:main Dec 17, 2024
8 checks passed
@pb8o pb8o deleted the test-ignore-tx-flush branch December 17, 2024 15:35
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Priority: Low Indicates that an issue or pull request should be resolved behind issues or pull requests labelled ` python Pull requests that update Python code Status: Awaiting review Indicates that a pull request is ready to be reviewed
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants