[SERVER-34595] transactionLifetimeLimitSeconds parameter should be set to high value for noPassthrough tests Created: 20/Apr/18 Updated: 29/Oct/23 Resolved: 04/Jun/18 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Core Server |
| Component/s: | Storage, Testing Infrastructure |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | 4.0.0-rc2, 4.1.1 |
| Type: | Bug | Priority: | Major - P3 |
| Reporter: | Ian Boros | Assignee: | Maria van Keulen |
| Resolution: | Fixed | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||
| Backwards Compatibility: | Fully Compatible | ||||||||
| Operating System: | ALL | ||||||||
| Backport Requested: |
v4.0
|
||||||||
| Sprint: | Storage NYC 2018-06-04, Storage NYC 2018-06-18 | ||||||||
| Participants: | |||||||||
| Linked BF Score: | 79 | ||||||||
| Description |
|
The transactionLifetimeLimitSeconds server parameter indicates how long a transaction may run for before it is aborted by a background thread. For tests, we set it to an extremely high value. However, fixtures started by tests in the noPassthrough suite have the default value of 60 seconds. This seems strange though, since it means that each test which uses transactions is responsible for setting the parameter manually. It's easy to forget to this (like in this test). I think the test fixtures should be modified so that this flag is set to a higher value (or at least, the test linked to above should use the higher value). |
| Comments |
| Comment by Githook User [ 04/Jun/18 ] |
|
Author: {'username': 'mvankeulen94', 'name': 'Maria van Keulen', 'email': 'maria@mongodb.com'}Message: (cherry picked from commit b82fe5e79018662c9c84e28b71034965d0dd836b) |
| Comment by Githook User [ 04/Jun/18 ] |
|
Author: {'username': 'mvankeulen94', 'name': 'Maria van Keulen', 'email': 'maria@mongodb.com'}Message: |
| Comment by Max Hirschhorn [ 26/Apr/18 ] |
|
I think this was just missed in the changes from 4f0c2f4 as part of |
| Comment by Ian Boros [ 20/Apr/18 ] |
|
Not sure if this belongs on storage or TIG. |