test-fix(offline): Only run "applies stashed ops with no saved ops" test against local server #23383
+20
−7
Conversation
This file contains 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
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Copilot reviewed 1 out of 1 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.
github-actions
bot
added
area: tests
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Description
Fixes AB#18451
This test is covering sequence number gymnastics when loading from serialized pending state and applying stashed ops. Server summary/op implementations and potential race conditions are not interesting, and only make the test run slow (4s on average for
waitForSummary) if not time out (the cause of the bug this fixes).So, only run against local server.
This also brings back the assert removed in #22712, but ensuring that we load from the summary (and don't end up with the original snapshot), which ensures we actually get coverage of the code this is supposed to test (see original PR adding the test, #17375)