Mark "split large buffers" test flaky#776
Merged
danicheg merged 3 commits intoseries/0.23from Dec 3, 2022
Merged
Conversation
Member
Author
|
Uh... does |
danicheg
reviewed
Dec 1, 2022
| } | ||
|
|
||
| test(testSuitePrefix + " should split large buffers") { | ||
| test((testSuitePrefix + " should split large buffers").flaky) { |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It makes me whaaaat
test(testSuitePrefix + " should split large buffers".flaky) {} // compiles but doesn't work properly
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
though nothing new, silly type-weakness of string concatenation
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh, good find. I always thought it was odd that operator went on the String in the first place.
Member
|
@rossabaker hope you don't mind that I dropped my few lines here |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Alternative to #771. Better discussion there, but this reflects that we don't yet understand it, but also lets us move forward.