Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix flaky zombienet test zombienet-substrate-0002-validators-warp-sync #5974

Open
Tracked by #5852
pepoviola opened this issue Oct 8, 2024 · 5 comments
Open
Tracked by #5852
Assignees

Comments

github-merge-queue bot pushed a commit that referenced this issue Oct 9, 2024
@michalkucharczyk
Copy link
Contributor

michalkucharczyk commented Oct 9, 2024

@pepoviola

I see this test internally is using substrate_beefy_best_block - why is it a beefy block and not just a best block?
Test is just using best block:

alice: reports block height is at least {{DB_BLOCK_HEIGHT}} within 60 seconds
bob: reports block height is at least {{DB_BLOCK_HEIGHT}} within 60 seconds
charlie: reports block height is at least {{DB_BLOCK_HEIGHT}} within 60 seconds

And it seems that this number is not being synced fast enough:

2024-10-07T16:20:55.002Z zombie::network-node using comparator isAtLeast for 10797, 56687
2024-10-07T16:20:55.002Z zombie::network-node [alice] Current value: 10797 for metric substrate_beefy_best_block, keep trying...
2024-10-07T16:20:56.002Z zombie::network-node [alice] Fetching metrics - q: 174  time:  Mon Oct 07 2024 16:20:56 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time)
2024-10-07T16:20:56.026Z zombie::network-node returning for: substrate_beefy_best_block from ns: _raw
2024-10-07T16:20:56.026Z zombie::network-node returning: 10997
2024-10-07T16:20:56.026Z zombie::network-node using comparator isAtLeast for 10997, 56687
2024-10-07T16:20:56.026Z zombie::network-node [alice] Current value: 10997 for metric substrate_beefy_best_block, keep trying...
2024-10-07T16:20:57.027Z zombie::network-node [alice] Fetching metrics - q: 175  time:  Mon Oct 07 2024 16:20:57 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time)
2024-10-07T16:20:57.048Z zombie::network-node returning for: substrate_beefy_best_block from ns: _raw
2024-10-07T16:20:57.048Z zombie::network-node returning: 11197
2024-10-07T16:20:57.048Z zombie::network-node using comparator isAtLeast for 11197, 56687
2024-10-07T16:20:57.048Z zombie::network-node [alice] Current value: 11197 for metric substrate_beefy_best_block, keep trying...
	 Error:  
		 [alice] Timeout(180), "getting desired metric value 56687 within 180 secs".

From a quick glance it looks like beefy sync issue?

@pepoviola
Copy link
Contributor Author

I see this test internally is using substrate_beefy_best_block - why is it a beefy block and not just a best block?
Test is just using best block:

Thanks for pointing this @michalkucharczyk, I think this is a bug. I will fix it and re-check this test.

Thanks for the help!

@pepoviola
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @michalkucharczyk, I double check and the lines you mention are from other test (0001). This issue is for 0002 and is set to check that metric

alice: reports substrate_beefy_best_block is at least {{DB_BLOCK_HEIGHT}} within 180 seconds
bob: reports substrate_beefy_best_block is at least {{DB_BLOCK_HEIGHT}} within 180 seconds
alice: reports substrate_beefy_best_block is greater than {{DB_BLOCK_HEIGHT}} within 180 seconds
bob: reports substrate_beefy_best_block is greater than {{DB_BLOCK_HEIGHT}} within 180 seconds

Thanks!

@michalkucharczyk
Copy link
Contributor

Oh, sorry.

So it looks like 180s is not enough for beefy to sync the best block.
@serban300 what are your thoughts on this? Do you think it can be some regression?

@serban300
Copy link
Contributor

I don't think it's a regression, but I would have to look more closely. I'll look on it these days.

mordamax pushed a commit to paritytech-stg/polkadot-sdk that referenced this issue Oct 9, 2024
mordamax pushed a commit to paritytech-stg/polkadot-sdk that referenced this issue Oct 9, 2024
@serban300 serban300 self-assigned this Oct 15, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants