ci: Fix flaky test #2577
ci: Fix flaky test #2577
Conversation
|
🚀 Thanks for opening this pull request! |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## alpha #2577 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00%
=========================================
Files 63 63
Lines 6174 6174
Branches 1449 1449
=========================================
Hits 6174 6174 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
🎉 Snyk checks have passed. No issues have been found so far.✅ security/snyk check is complete. No issues have been found. (View Details) |
|
Ran the CI 3 times and it passed; is this ready for merge? |
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe test for saving and retrieving an object in the Parse Dist Test was updated to use more descriptive variable names and to fetch the saved object by its unique ID instead of retrieving the first object in the class. Assertions were adjusted to verify the correct object is retrieved. Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant Test as Test Case
participant Parse as Parse Server
Test->>Parse: Save new TestObject
Parse-->>Test: Return saved object with objectId
Test->>Parse: Get TestObject by objectId
Parse-->>Test: Return TestObject with matching objectId
Test->>Test: Assert retrieved object's ID matches saved objectId
🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
SupportNeed help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions. Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
|
This is ready to merge! |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
integration/test/ParseDistTest.js (1)
35-44: Consider reviewing similar test patternsThis test still uses the
.first()method which could potentially cause similar flakiness issues as the test you just fixed. While this particular test may not have exhibited flaky behavior yet, applying a similar pattern (saving an object and retrieving it by ID) might be more reliable for consistent test outcomes.This is just a suggestion for future improvements since the PR is specifically targeting the test that was reported as flaky.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
integration/test/ParseDistTest.js(1 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (3)
- GitHub Check: build (Node 20, 20.15.1)
- GitHub Check: build (Node 22, 22.4.1)
- GitHub Check: build (Node 18, 18.20.4)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
integration/test/ParseDistTest.js (1)
24-33: Great fix for the flaky test!This change addresses the root cause of the flaky test issue by retrieving the exact object by ID instead of using
first(). Usingget(objectId)ensures the test consistently retrieves the specific object that was just created, eliminating race conditions that can occur in CI environments with parallel tests or residual data.The more descriptive variable name
objectIdalso improves code readability and makes the intent clearer.
Pull Request
Issue
I’m not sure why this happens, all the dist test have been flaky
https://github.com/parse-community/Parse-SDK-JS/actions/runs/14551497396/job/40823207553?pr=1803
Summary by CodeRabbit