lessless

lessless

Hello,

The module under test depends on three OTP process and thus they’re started in test setup callback:

setup do
    accounts = TestAccounts.accounts()
    {:ok, scheduler}      = Enum.map(accounts, &Map.get(&1, :name)) |> Scheduler.start_link() # GenStage
    {:ok, acc_supervisor} = AccountsSupervisor.start_link() # Supervisor
    {:ok, provisor}       = Provisor.start_link() # GenServer

    {:ok, accounts: accounts}
  end

I thought that they will be killed automatically after completion of each of the test case, but looks like it’s not the case - once in 3-4 runs a wild ** (MatchError) no match of right hand side value: {:error, {:already_started, #PID<0.2161.0>}} error begun to appear.

I managed to catch it both for Scheduler and for AccountsSupervisor.

The application supervision tree is:

workers  = [
  supervisor(Registry, [:unique, Postman.Registry]),
  supervisor(AccountsSupervisor, []),
  worker(Provisor, []),
  worker(Scheduler, [Enum.map(accounts, &Map.get(&1, :name))])
]

First idea (confirmed by googling) was to stop those processes in on_exit function:

  setup do
    accounts = TestAccounts.accounts()
    {:ok, scheduler}      = Enum.map(accounts, &Map.get(&1, :name)) |> Scheduler.start_link() # GenStage
    {:ok, acc_supervisor} = AccountsSupervisor.start_link() # Supervisor
    {:ok, provisor}       = Provisor.start_link() # GenServer

    on_exit fn ->
      Supervisor.stop(acc_supervisor)
      GenServer.stop(provisor)
      GenStage.stop(scheduler)
    end

    {:ok, accounts: accounts}
  end

That led to a whole new bunch of other errors/complaints:

  • Supervisor.stop(acc_supervisor) produce
 ** (exit) exited in: :sys.terminate(#PID<0.572.0>, :normal, :infinity)
         ** (EXIT) shutdown

I think this is just a notification message, but I would really really like to avoid capturing errors for all tests where a Supervisor should be stopped.

  • GenServer.stop(provisor) produce
     ** (exit) no process: the process is not alive or there's no process currently associated with the given name, possibly because its application isn't started
  • GenStage.stop(scheduler) produce
 ** (exit) no process: the process is not alive or there's no process currently associated with the given name, possibly because its application isn't started

Here you can see some clear contradictions(race conditions) - sometimes processes are still running, sometimes they’re not.

Lastly I wrote a function to overcome that problem which kills process only if it’s alive:

  def kill_if_alive(pid) do
    case Process.alive?(pid) do
      true -> Process.exit(pid, :kill)
      _    -> :ok
    end
  end

After that, an even stranger race condition in one of the tests started to appear.

test "start all accounts", ctx do
  assert Supervisor.which_children(AccountsSupervisor) |> length() == 0
  assert Provisor.start_all_accounts(ctx.accounts)     |> length() == length(ctx.accounts)
  assert Supervisor.which_children(AccountsSupervisor) |> length() == length(ctx.accounts)
end

 Assertion with == failed
     code:  Supervisor.which_children(AccountsSupervisor) |> length() == length(ctx.accounts())
     left:  1
     right: 2
     stacktrace:
       test/processor/provisor_test.exs:26: (test)

Provisor.start_all_accounts spawns a bunch of supervisors under AccountsSupervisor and thus they’should be stopped with AccountsSupervisor

This situation is utterly confusing and I hope somebody can clarify what’s going on and how to properly stop those processes.

Showing Posts 1 to 7

NobbZ

NobbZ

Since we happen to have race conditions in tear-up and -down code of the tests, have you already set the testmodule to run the tests one by one by using async: false?

lessless

lessless OP

Yep, just added async: false to all test files. Also, because of all processes register themselves within the local registry, I added it to the restart routine as well:

  setup do
    accounts         = TestAccounts.accounts()
    {:ok, registry}  = Registry.start_link(:unique, Postman.Registry)
    {:ok, scheduler} = Enum.map(accounts, &Map.get(&1, :name)) |> Scheduler.start_link()
    {:ok, accs_sup}  = AccountsSupervisor.start_link()
    {:ok, provisor}  = Provisor.start_link()

    on_exit fn ->
      TestUtils.kill_if_alive(accs_sup)
      TestUtils.kill_if_alive(provisor)
      TestUtils.kill_if_alive(scheduler)
      TestUtils.kill_if_alive(registry)
    end

    {:ok, accounts: accounts}
  end 

and bam - Registry.start_link(:unique, Postman.Registry) throw all kinds of amazing errors:

** (MatchError) no match of right hand side value: {:error, {:already_started, #PID<0.608.0>}}

14:01:37.012 [error] GenServer Postman.Registry.PIDPartition0 terminating ** (stop) killed Last message: {:EXIT, #PID<0.566.0>, :killed}

(two different runs)

NobbZ

NobbZ

Can you assemble a mini-project which shows the problem and make it accessible to the public via github or something similar?

josevalim

josevalim

Creator of Elixir

There is no need for a mini-project. :slight_smile: This is how ExUnit works.

@lessless the processes you start in setup are linked to the test process. This means that, when the test finishes, those processes will asynchronously terminate since the link between those processes and the test process is broken.

That’s why you have races: there is no guarantee those linked processes will terminate before the next test starts. Also, because on_exit runs after the test process exits, the linked processes may be running or have already died, that’s why Supervisor.stop and friends may fail or not.

Overall, it is the same race conditions. The processes you spawn may or may not have exited by the time you run on_exit or the next test starts.

That said, all you need to guarantee is that those processes are DOWN in the on_exit callback, making sure you have a client slate for the next test run. Since Process.monitor/1 won’t fail if you give it a dead process, it suits the bill perfectly. You should add this function to your codebase:

defp assert_down(pid) do
  ref = Process.monitor(pid)
  assert_receive {:DOWN, ^ref, _, _, _}
end

And call it for every named processes to have a beautifully green test suite.

We are in the process of making this simpler for Elixir v1.5 by starting a supervisor per test and allowing you to start processes under the test supervisor. This means we can cleanly shut everything at the end of the test without user intervention. Stay tunned. :slight_smile:

25
Post #4
lessless

lessless OP

Thank you @josevalim, you saved day once again! I believe that should get on elixir radar, 'cause there is a chance that this behavior wasn’t explained anywhere before.

lukyanov

lukyanov

Hello!

We are in the process of making this simpler for Elixir v1.5 by starting a supervisor per test and allowing you to start processes under the test supervisor. This means we can cleanly shut everything at the end of the test without user intervention. Stay tunned.

@josevalim could you shed some light on this old subject? Has anything changed in Elixir since then regarding this?

As it looks to me, the issue is still valid for the latest (1.10) version. I mean the functions like assert_down in on_exit are still required to wait for all the processes to be stopped. Is this still true or am I missing something here?

Thank you.

LostKobrakai

LostKobrakai

There’s start_supervised, which will make the process be managed for the livecycle of the test running.

— All posts loaded —

Where Next? Top

Trending in Questions Top

RSP87
I’m working on a project that simulates the bumbl example in the programming phoenix book. It acts almost like an email client. We have a...
New
kpanic
Hi everyone, I am toying with the idea of building a “match maker” for giving personal help to people that wants to start coding. I sta...
New
nseaSeb
Hello, I know there is an approach for handling lists that allows for optimized traversal, but I can’t recall the specific method (somet...
New
brecabral
Documentation While reading the Scoped Routes section, I noticed that the documentation currently refers to a problem without explainin...
New
velrest
So my question is quite simple and i have found no conclusive answer on forum, google or AI. Should we use :erlang.float for Integer to ...
New
asweet-confluent
I recently noticed that Elixir’s Logger defaults its primary log level to :debug when no :logger, :level application configuration is pre...
New
apz
I’m new to elixir and just tried to install the elixirLS extension for VScode(ium) and it is throwing some errors that I would like help ...
New

Other Trending Topics Top

JesseHerrick
Hey, I’m Jesse and I’m the main contributor behind Dexter, a full-featured, lightning-fast Elixir LSP optimized for large codebases. It s...
New
marciok
Hi there! We created Gust: A task orchestrator inspired by Airflow. For those who have never heard about Aiflow, it’s a Python-based wor...
New
mhanberg
Hi everyone! The first release candidate for the Expert language server project is now available! We’ve published a press release detai...
New
jimsynz
Beam Bots (or just BB for short) is a framework for building fault-tolerant robotics applications in Elixir using familiar OTP patterns. ...
New
Dmk
Xamal is a deployment tool for Elixir apps that deploys native releases to bare metal servers over SSH. It’s a port of GitHub - basecamp/...
New
webofbits
With AI doing more of the implementation work, I’ve been wondering how much coding I should deliberately keep doing myself. My main conc...
#ai
New

We're in Beta

About us Mission Statement

Options

Thread Display Mode




Thread Preview

Skip Thread Previews