Skip to content

Conversation

benbrandt
Copy link
Member

Finally getting around to replacing the need for all of these commands, and instead just uses rust crates/builtins.

I haven't replaced the wasmtime calls yet.

@benbrandt benbrandt force-pushed the simplify-integration-tests branch 2 times, most recently from e2a0e29 to 465ded9 Compare April 24, 2025 20:44
@benbrandt benbrandt force-pushed the simplify-integration-tests branch from 465ded9 to 53c4a2e Compare April 24, 2025 20:44
@benbrandt benbrandt force-pushed the simplify-integration-tests branch from faf1721 to 299ee90 Compare April 25, 2025 11:36
@benbrandt
Copy link
Member Author

@dicej there is an issue with the latest nightly. Is nightly still necessary for the runtime? In which case I will maybe either allow the lint or opt into the feature it is flagging

@benbrandt
Copy link
Member Author

Wait nevermind I just realized I didnt try the latest nightly locally. I'll do that later

@benbrandt
Copy link
Member Author

Ok it appears my wait on stderr doesn't work on windows... and this hangs forever... sorry...

@benbrandt benbrandt force-pushed the simplify-integration-tests branch 2 times, most recently from baef216 to 70f033b Compare April 27, 2025 13:40
@benbrandt benbrandt force-pushed the simplify-integration-tests branch from 70f033b to f7dc207 Compare April 27, 2025 13:43
@benbrandt
Copy link
Member Author

@dicej This is ready (I think)
Happy to get feedback here, but tried to remove the system dependencies I introduced for the tests finally

Copy link
Collaborator

@dicej dicej left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for doing this!

LGTM overall; just wondering if we could drop the sleep in http_example and boost the number of retries, as well as switch to an exponential back-off (e.g. starting at 100ms and capped at 20 seconds or so).

.spawn()?;

// Sleep a bit to give the server time to start
std::thread::sleep(Duration::from_secs(5));
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this necessary given the retry code below? I'd rather do some kind of retry with exponential back-off (e.g. no initial delay, then 100ms, then 200, then 400, etc.) to ensure that the tests run quickly on fast machines but also run reliably on slower machines.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good point. I got a little sidetracked just trying to get this to work 😅

I pushed up the change, let me know what you think

Copy link
Collaborator

@dicej dicej left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks!

@dicej dicej merged commit c21fdfc into bytecodealliance:main Apr 30, 2025
4 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants