id summary reporter owner description type status priority milestone component version resolution keywords cc launchpad_bug 2891 fix intermittent test coverage warner "This ticket is to keep track of lines which sometimes get covered during unit tests and which sometimes do not. This probably happens because those lines are only exercised by ""system"" -style tests, which randomly hit some servers and not others. We should fix these by writing more narrowly-focussed ""unit""-style tests that exercise just the function in question, deterministically. The most annoying thing about these tests is when they cause perfectly valid pull requests to be flagged as broken (because the test coverage happened to drop when they went through CI, through no fault of the PR's changes). Let's ~~strikeout~~ these items as we fix them. * src/allmydata/mutable/servermap.py * ~~~[https://github.com/tahoe-lafs/tahoe-lafs/blob/74e7ef4b98bc322da5a49c33e0706b57aab3a6d3/src/allmydata/mutable/servermap.py#L39 L 39: UpdateStatus.add_per_server_time]~~~ * the status object's `.timings[""per_server""]` attribute is a dict-of-lists, and line 39 handles the case where we *don't* have to add a new entry to the dict. This should just be replaced by a `collections.defaultdict`, rather than needing any new tests. * [https://github.com/tahoe-lafs/tahoe-lafs/blob/74e7ef4b98bc322da5a49c33e0706b57aab3a6d3/src/allmydata/mutable/servermap.py#L923 L 923: ServermapUpdater._try_to_validate_privkey] * this clause checks that the share contained an (encrypted) RSA signing key that matches the expectation we got from the writecap. The clause should succeed for normal shares, but will fail for corrupted shares. Apparently we have a test that corrupts some shares, but which then doesn't always look at them. * src/allmydata/mutable/publish.py * [https://github.com/tahoe-lafs/tahoe-lafs/blob/95ac5494ffaad61494e0616286894a20b87b7da8/src/allmydata/mutable/publish.py#L451 L 451: Publish.publish] * to exercise this, we need some bad shares recorded in the servermap (ticket:3540) * [https://github.com/tahoe-lafs/tahoe-lafs/blob/95ac5494ffaad61494e0616286894a20b87b7da8/src/allmydata/mutable/publish.py#L496 L 496 Publish.publish] * src/allmydata/immutable/upload.py * [https://github.com/tahoe-lafs/tahoe-lafs/blob/d91516a5c5c7d6c6a8d040aed4302aa2b9e3bf90/src/allmydata/immutable/upload.py#L703 Tahoe2ServerSelector._buckets_allocated()] * the `if s in self.homeless_shares` inside the non-Failure path doesn't always exercise both sides of the branch * src/allmydata/immutable/downloader/share.py * [https://github.com/tahoe-lafs/tahoe-lafs/blob/d91516a5c5c7d6c6a8d040aed4302aa2b9e3bf90/src/allmydata/immutable/downloader/share.py#L211 Share.loop()] * this share-is-corrupted branch is not always exercised * L228-236 * the !DataUnavailable branch is not always exercised * [https://github.com/tahoe-lafs/tahoe-lafs/blob/d91516a5c5c7d6c6a8d040aed4302aa2b9e3bf90/src/allmydata/immutable/downloader/share.py#L277 L277-279 Share._do_loop()] * this doesn't always see a non-empty `disappointment` array, and sometimes doesn't raise !DataUnavailable. This is the parent cause of the L228-L236 non-coverage above. * [https://github.com/tahoe-lafs/tahoe-lafs/blob/d91516a5c5c7d6c6a8d040aed4302aa2b9e3bf90/src/allmydata/immutable/downloader/share.py#L386 L386-389 _satisfy_offsets()] * the share_hashes_size test doesn't exercise both sides of the branch * [https://github.com/tahoe-lafs/tahoe-lafs/blob/d91516a5c5c7d6c6a8d040aed4302aa2b9e3bf90/src/allmydata/immutable/downloader/share.py#L386 L761 _got_data()] * the `if not self._alive` check doesn't always exercise both branches * src/allmydata/util/dictutil.py * ~~~[https://github.com/tahoe-lafs/tahoe-lafs/blob/95ac5494ffaad61494e0616286894a20b87b7da8/src/allmydata/util/dictutil.py#L29 L 29 subtract()]~~~ * ~~~[https://github.com/tahoe-lafs/tahoe-lafs/blob/95ac5494ffaad61494e0616286894a20b87b7da8/src/allmydata/util/dictutil.py#L230 L 230 NumDict.item_with_largest_value()]~~~ * ~~~[https://github.com/tahoe-lafs/tahoe-lafs/blob/95ac5494ffaad61494e0616286894a20b87b7da8/src/allmydata/util/dictutil.py#L438 L 438 ValueOrderedDict.__repr_n__]~~~ * ~~~[https://github.com/tahoe-lafs/tahoe-lafs/blob/95ac5494ffaad61494e0616286894a20b87b7da8/src/allmydata/util/dictutil.py#L507 L 507 ValueOrderedDict.__setitem__]~~~ * ~~~[https://github.com/tahoe-lafs/tahoe-lafs/blob/95ac5494ffaad61494e0616286894a20b87b7da8/src/allmydata/util/dictutil.py#L511 L 511 ValueOrderedDict.__setitem__]~~~ * ~~~[https://github.com/tahoe-lafs/tahoe-lafs/blob/95ac5494ffaad61494e0616286894a20b87b7da8/src/allmydata/util/dictutil.py#L550 L 550 ValueOrderedDict.__delitem__]~~~ * ~~~[https://github.com/tahoe-lafs/tahoe-lafs/blob/95ac5494ffaad61494e0616286894a20b87b7da8/src/allmydata/util/dictutil.py#L597 L 597 ValueOrderedDict.pop]~~~ * src/allmydata/stats.py * [https://github.com/tahoe-lafs/tahoe-lafs/blob/3f2f7dfb05ad7f505b70323459aec8d70d2a3ab5/src/allmydata/stats.py#L68 L64-68 LoadMonitor.get_stats()] * noticed in a [https://codecov.io/gh/tahoe-lafs/tahoe-lafs/pull/421/changes build of PR421] * get_stats() returns an average of the last 60 datapoints, but if there are no datapoints at all, a different branch is taken * that no-datapoints branch is sometimes not covered by the tests * src/allmydata/web/status.py * also from that PR421 build * [https://github.com/tahoe-lafs/tahoe-lafs/blob/3f2f7dfb05ad7f505b70323459aec8d70d2a3ab5/src/allmydata/web/status.py#L758 L758 RetrieveStatusPage.render_server_timings()] * sometimes the `fetch_per_server` timing data is empty, which skips parts of this function * [https://github.com/tahoe-lafs/tahoe-lafs/blob/3f2f7dfb05ad7f505b70323459aec8d70d2a3ab5/src/allmydata/web/status.py#L925 L925 MapupdateStatusPage.render_privkey_from()] * sometimes this is called when the privkey has not been fetched, so it skips the affirmative side of the branch * [https://github.com/tahoe-lafs/tahoe-lafs/blob/d91516a5c5c7d6c6a8d040aed4302aa2b9e3bf90/src/allmydata/web/status.py#L1117 L1117 Status.childFactory()] * the loop that looks for a ""down-%s"" name in h.list_all_download_statuses() doesn't always exercise both sides of the `if s.get_counter() == count` clause " defect new normal undecided code 1.12.1