fix(infra): Fix test ID sequencing flake #104834
Merged
+15
−1
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Member
Author
This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking. |
rbro112
changed the title
hubertdeng123
approved these changes
Dec 12, 2025
Member
|
great find |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This was a tough one. Under the hood when creating a
teamwhenSENTRY_USE_SNOWFLAKE=true(default), the team is created in the DB with a snowflake ID (a bigint like4557266861096961). This makes postgres automatically create new (non-snowflake) teams with IDs that are autoincrementing, meaning4557266861096962.This broke the specific
SENTRY_USE_SNOWFLAKE=falsetest case, as a previous test withSENTRY_USE_SNOWFLAKE=truewould create a team with a very large snowflake ID, but then the autoincrement would continue from that ID, breaking the rigid < 1000000000 check.This instead just checks that autoincrement will take place, which IMO is a better test anyway of what the intent was of the existing test.