Re: Any ideas Re: #1030096 dask.distributed intermittent autopkgtest fail ?
Hi Rebecca,
Am Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 07:59:17AM +0000 schrieb Rebecca N. Palmer:
> (Background: the pandas + dask transition broke dask.distributed and it was
> hence removed from testing; I didn't notice at the time that if we don't get
> it back in we lose Spyder.)
as far as I know Diane has put quite some effort into dask and I
understood that dask and dask.distributed are closely interconnected.
> And now test_failing_task_increments_suspicious (once):
> https://salsa.debian.org/rnpalmer-guest/dask.distributed/-/jobs/3903956
> (We don't have to pass build-i386 (as this is an arch:all package) or
> reprotest, but if these are effectively-random failures, they might also be
> able to occur in build or autopkgtest.)
>
> I'm probably the wrong person to be working on this - I don't know enough
> about this package to say whether ignoring this kind of intermittent failure
> (as my 'flaky' marks do) is appropriate, or to have much idea how to
> actually fix it.
In several cases we decided to ignore some tests. While I like the idea
to mark a test flaky instead ignoring it completely given your
experience I think ignoring these tests is a valid way to proceed with
this package for the moment.
> We could also try upgrading dask + dask.distributed to 2023.1, but that's a
> risky move at this point.
I agree that it is risky. We might discuss this with upstream and
possibly use an experimental branch to verify how it works. It might be
that later versions work better with later Pandas / Python3.11.
However, the window of opportunity to get something in before the freeze
is closing and I'm afraid we do not have time for experiments.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: