[fix][test]: Flaky-test: GetPartitionMetadataMultiBrokerTest.testCompatibilityDifferentBrokersForNonPersistentTopic

[visxu]

flaky-test: GetPartitionMetadataMultiBrokerTest.testCompatibilityDifferentBrokersForNonPersistentTopic

Fixes #23416

Motivation

Error:  org.apache.pulsar.broker.admin.GetPartitionMetadataMultiBrokerTest.testCompatibilityDifferentBrokersForNonPersistentTopic[true, true, false](8)  Time elapsed: 10.311 s  <<< FAILURE!
  org.awaitility.core.ConditionTimeoutException: Assertion condition expected [99999] but found [100000] within 10 seconds.
  	at org.awaitility.core.ConditionAwaiter.await(ConditionAwaiter.java:167)
  	at org.awaitility.core.AssertionCondition.await(AssertionCondition.java:119)
  	at org.awaitility.core.AssertionCondition.await(AssertionCondition.java:31)
  	at org.awaitility.core.ConditionFactory.until(ConditionFactory.java:985)
  	at org.awaitility.core.ConditionFactory.untilAsserted(ConditionFactory.java:769)
  	at org.apache.pulsar.broker.admin.GetPartitionMetadataMultiBrokerTest.testCompatibilityDifferentBrokersForNonPersistentTopic(GetPartitionMetadataMultiBrokerTest.java:296)

Modifications

int lookupPermitsBefore = getLookupRequestPermits();, put this code at the beginning of ut execution.

Verifying this change

• Make sure that the change passes the CI checks.

(Please pick either of the following options)

This change is a trivial rework / code cleanup without any test coverage.

(or)

This change is already covered by existing tests, such as (please describe tests).

(or)

This change added tests and can be verified as follows:

(example:)

• Added integration tests for end-to-end deployment with large payloads (10MB)
• Extended integration test for recovery after broker failure

Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following parts:

If the box was checked, please highlight the changes

• Dependencies (add or upgrade a dependency)
• The public API
• The schema
• The default values of configurations
• The threading model
• The binary protocol
• The REST endpoints
• The admin CLI options
• The metrics
• Anything that affects deployment

Documentation

• doc
• doc-required
• doc-not-needed
• doc-complete

Matching PR in forked repository

PR in forked repository:

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 74.39%. Comparing base (bbc6224) to head (37d4293).
Report is 772 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master   #23666      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     73.57%   74.39%   +0.82%     
- Complexity    32624    35057    +2433     
============================================
  Files          1877     1944      +67     
  Lines        139502   147331    +7829     
  Branches      15299    16258     +959     
============================================
+ Hits         102638   109614    +6976     
- Misses        28908    29271     +363     
- Partials       7956     8446     +490     

Flag	Coverage Δ
inttests	27.31% <ø> (+2.73%)	⬆️
systests	24.39% <ø> (+0.07%)	⬆️
unittests	73.79% <ø> (+0.94%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

see 667 files with indirect coverage changes

[visxu]

Hi, @lhotari
Could you help to review it if you're available, thanks.

[pdolif]

@visxu With this we would also ensure that no lookup related to the __change_events topic is in progress while setting the lookupPermitsBefore variable, right?

[visxu]

@visxu With this we would also ensure that no lookup related to the __change_events topic is in progress while setting the lookupPermitsBefore variable, right?

Yes, sure. There's no lookup operation(like getBroker in the UT) before getLookupRequestPermits().

[visxu]

@lhotari Could you help to approve this? Thanks in advance.

[visxu]

Hi, @pdolif . Could you help loop other committers to approve this ??