test: use dynamic port in test-dgram-bind-shared-ports #12452

orafaelfragoso · 2017-04-16T21:02:55Z

Use of common.PORT in parallel tests is not completely safe (because
the same port can be previously assigned to another test running in
parallel if that test uses port 0 to get an arbitrary available port).

Remove common.PORT from test-dgram-bind-shared-ports.

Refs: #12376

Checklist

make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes
tests and/or benchmarks are included
commit message follows commit guidelines

Affected core subsystem(s)

test

santigimeno · 2017-04-16T21:50:24Z

test/parallel/test-dgram-bind-shared-ports.js

-    socket2.bind({ port: common.PORT + 1, exclusive: true }, () => {
+  }, common.mustCall(() => {
+    socket2.bind({
+      port: socket1.address().port + 1,


I don't think this is correct. There's no guarantee that this port is in use by a different process. TBH I'm not sure there's a better solution than using common.PORT, maybe someone has a better idea.

Is there a reason that this port has to be the first port + 1? Couldn't it just be port: 0 as well?

That won't work as it would use a different port on every worker.

Yeah, both workers need to use the same two port numbers for both sockets. (In other words, each worker has two sockets. And those sockets should have duplicate ports across workers.)

I think the choices are:

introduce code to communicate ports between the two workers, or

move the test as-is to sequential

To be clear, the change already in place in this test is incorrect because it guarantees that socket1 doesn't use the same port in worker1 and worker2. Both workers should use the same port. (Nothing to feel bad about with missing that. It's not a completely intuitive test. It certainly took me a while to figure out what was going on.)

I think the way to go is to move the test as it currently exists on the master branch from the parallel directory to the sequential directory.

the change already in place in this test is incorrect because it guarantees that socket1 doesn't use the same port in worker1 and worker2.

I'm not sure about this. I think that socket1 being a non-exclusive socket will use the same port in both workers. That's not the case with socket2 though.

I think the way to go is to move the test as it currently exists on the master branch from the parallel directory to the sequential directory.

I agree.

Trott

Using socket1.address().port +1 is still a problem. See comments. This one might be do-able using operating system-assigned ports, but the easiest thing to do might be to move it from parallel to sequential and don't make any changes to the code. If someone wants to refactor it to use dynamic ports at a later date, then great. If not, that's fine too.

orafaelfragoso · 2017-04-18T00:22:55Z

I'm lost. The original test was using common.PORT + 1. So that means it was wrong from the start?

Trott · 2017-04-18T00:29:24Z

I'm lost. The original test was using common.PORT + 1. So that means it was wrong from the start?

No, the original test was fine.

The test creates two workers. Each worker creates two dgram sockets. One is on common.PORT and one is on common.PORT + 1. The whole point of the test is that both workers each try to use the same ports. The first dgram socket is configured in such a way that it is not a problem that they are using the same port. The second dgram socket is configured in such a way that this results in an error. The test was checking to see if that behavior was being seen or not.

By changing common.PORT to 0, the port collision (which is an essential part of the test) is removed.

orafaelfragoso · 2017-04-18T00:35:10Z

I see. Thanks for clearing that up.

What would you recommend me doing?

Trott · 2017-04-18T01:42:26Z

What would you recommend me doing?

I would recommend rewriting the test so that the ports selected by the first worker can be communicated to the second worker so it can use the same ports. Probably use process.send() in worker1 to send the port information to the cluster master process, which can then send it to worker2.

orafaelfragoso · 2017-04-18T10:35:02Z

@Trott is there a place where we can chat about node? I would love to get some more insights from you.

I'll try to make these changes.

Trott · 2017-04-18T20:07:37Z

@rafaelfragosom A large portion of the regular contributors to Node.js (including me) are often in the #node-dev channel on Freenode IRC, so that might be a place to get insights from a bunch of people.

orafaelfragoso · 2017-04-26T12:29:55Z

@Trott I moved the test to sequential and restored the use of common.PORT(). I'll be glad to understand and help with the other approach you mentioned (dynamic ports).

Trott

LGTM

Trott · 2017-04-27T04:08:38Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/7697/

lpinca · 2017-05-13T05:55:25Z

@rafaelfragosom can you please rebase against master?

Use of common.PORT in parallel tests is not completely safe (because the same port can be previously assigned to another test running in parallel if that test uses port 0 to get an arbitrary available port). Remove common.PORT from test-dgram-bind-shared-ports.

Adding a common.mustCall() to socket1 callback on test-dgram-bind-shared-ports to make sure the callback is being called.

As was pointed out on [this review](nodejs#12452 (review)) I moved the test to the sequential folder. Refs: nodejs#12376

Restoring the contents of the test to it's original with common.PORT() Refs: nodejs#12376

orafaelfragoso · 2017-05-13T13:10:20Z

@lpinca I think I just did it, let me know.

lpinca · 2017-05-13T13:14:43Z

@rafaelfragosom thank you.

lpinca · 2017-05-13T13:25:46Z

CI 2: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/8059/

PR-URL: nodejs#12452 Ref: nodejs#12376 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gibson Fahnestock <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]>

lpinca · 2017-05-13T16:38:57Z

Landed in 84fc069.

PR-URL: nodejs#12452 Ref: nodejs#12376 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gibson Fahnestock <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]>

PR-URL: #12452 Ref: #12376 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Gibson Fahnestock <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]>

nodejs-github-bot added the test Issues and PRs related to the tests. label Apr 16, 2017

santigimeno reviewed Apr 16, 2017

View reviewed changes

santigimeno added cluster Issues and PRs related to the cluster subsystem. dgram Issues and PRs related to the dgram subsystem / UDP. labels Apr 16, 2017

jasnell approved these changes Apr 17, 2017

View reviewed changes

Trott requested changes Apr 17, 2017

View reviewed changes

orafaelfragoso force-pushed the test-dgram branch from 0c0e3c5 to 70981ac Compare April 26, 2017 12:18

Trott approved these changes Apr 27, 2017

View reviewed changes

gibfahn approved these changes Apr 27, 2017

View reviewed changes

cjihrig approved these changes Apr 27, 2017

View reviewed changes

santigimeno mentioned this pull request Apr 28, 2017

Remove common.PORT usage from parallel tests #12473

Closed

3 tasks

arturgvieira-zz mentioned this pull request May 12, 2017

test: moved dgram bind shared ports to sequential #12999

Closed

2 tasks

orafaelfragoso added 4 commits May 13, 2017 10:02

test: adding common.mustCall() to socket1 callback

f523cff

Adding a common.mustCall() to socket1 callback on test-dgram-bind-shared-ports to make sure the callback is being called.

test: moved test-dgram-bind-shared-ports to sequential

b59f704

As was pointed out on [this review](nodejs#12452 (review)) I moved the test to the sequential folder. Refs: nodejs#12376

test: restoring test-dgram-bind-shared-ports to original

07d3bf8

Restoring the contents of the test to it's original with common.PORT() Refs: nodejs#12376

orafaelfragoso force-pushed the test-dgram branch from 31c426a to 07d3bf8 Compare May 13, 2017 13:08

lpinca approved these changes May 13, 2017

View reviewed changes

lpinca closed this May 13, 2017

Trott mentioned this pull request May 13, 2017

Remove common.PORT usage from parallel tests #12376

Closed

64 tasks

jasnell mentioned this pull request May 28, 2017

8.0.0 Release Proposal #12220

Closed

gibfahn mentioned this pull request Jun 15, 2017

Auditing for 6.11.1 nodejs/Release#230

Closed

3 tasks

MylesBorins added the land-on-v6.x label Jun 22, 2017

MylesBorins mentioned this pull request Jul 18, 2017

v6.11.2 proposal #14356

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

test: use dynamic port in test-dgram-bind-shared-ports #12452

test: use dynamic port in test-dgram-bind-shared-ports #12452

orafaelfragoso commented Apr 16, 2017

santigimeno Apr 16, 2017

gibfahn Apr 16, 2017 •

edited

Loading

santigimeno Apr 16, 2017

Trott Apr 16, 2017

Trott Apr 16, 2017 •

edited

Loading

santigimeno Apr 17, 2017

Trott left a comment

orafaelfragoso commented Apr 18, 2017

Trott commented Apr 18, 2017

orafaelfragoso commented Apr 18, 2017

Trott commented Apr 18, 2017

orafaelfragoso commented Apr 18, 2017

Trott commented Apr 18, 2017

orafaelfragoso commented Apr 26, 2017

Trott left a comment

Trott commented Apr 27, 2017

lpinca commented May 13, 2017

orafaelfragoso commented May 13, 2017

lpinca commented May 13, 2017

lpinca commented May 13, 2017

lpinca commented May 13, 2017

test: use dynamic port in test-dgram-bind-shared-ports #12452

test: use dynamic port in test-dgram-bind-shared-ports #12452

Conversation

orafaelfragoso commented Apr 16, 2017

Checklist

Affected core subsystem(s)

santigimeno Apr 16, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

gibfahn Apr 16, 2017 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

santigimeno Apr 16, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Trott Apr 16, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Trott Apr 16, 2017 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

santigimeno Apr 17, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Trott left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

orafaelfragoso commented Apr 18, 2017

Trott commented Apr 18, 2017

orafaelfragoso commented Apr 18, 2017

Trott commented Apr 18, 2017

orafaelfragoso commented Apr 18, 2017

Trott commented Apr 18, 2017

orafaelfragoso commented Apr 26, 2017

Trott left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Trott commented Apr 27, 2017

lpinca commented May 13, 2017

orafaelfragoso commented May 13, 2017

lpinca commented May 13, 2017

lpinca commented May 13, 2017

lpinca commented May 13, 2017

gibfahn Apr 16, 2017 •

edited

Loading

Trott Apr 16, 2017 •

edited

Loading