Any ideas Re: #1030096 dask.distributed intermittent autopkgtest fail ?
(Background: the pandas + dask transition broke dask.distributed and it
was hence removed from testing; I didn't notice at the time that if we
don't get it back in we lose Spyder.)
On 05/02/2023 21:44, Rebecca N. Palmer wrote:
I currently have this in a state where it sometimes succeeds and
sometimes doesn't:
https://salsa.debian.org/rnpalmer-guest/dask.distributed/-/tree/fix1030096
Tests I've seen to fail multiple times (and don't have a fix for):
test_balance_expensive_tasks[enough work to steal]
https://salsa.debian.org/rnpalmer-guest/dask.distributed/-/jobs/3902376
(Seems to be the most common problem. Using @pytest.mark.flaky to try 3
times doesn't seem to have helped, suggesting that if it fails once it
keeps failing in that run. Applying part of upstream pull 7253 seemed
to make things worse, but I haven't tried applying the whole thing.)
test_popen_timeout
https://salsa.debian.org/rnpalmer-guest/dask.distributed/-/jobs/3902745
Tests I've seen to fail once:
test_stress_scatter_death
https://salsa.debian.org/rnpalmer-guest/dask.distributed/-/jobs/3902040
test_tcp_many_listeners[asyncio]
https://salsa.debian.org/rnpalmer-guest/dask.distributed/-/jobs/3896327
And now test_failing_task_increments_suspicious (once):
https://salsa.debian.org/rnpalmer-guest/dask.distributed/-/jobs/3903956
(We don't have to pass build-i386 (as this is an arch:all package) or
reprotest, but if these are effectively-random failures, they might also
be able to occur in build or autopkgtest.)
I'm probably the wrong person to be working on this - I don't know
enough about this package to say whether ignoring this kind of
intermittent failure (as my 'flaky' marks do) is appropriate, or to have
much idea how to actually fix it.
We could also try upgrading dask + dask.distributed to 2023.1, but
that's a risky move at this point.
Reply to: