Skip to content

tests: conformance test fixes 1#1719

Open
feywind wants to merge 38 commits intomainfrom
conformance-fixes
Open

tests: conformance test fixes 1#1719
feywind wants to merge 38 commits intomainfrom
conformance-fixes

Conversation

@feywind
Copy link
Contributor

@feywind feywind commented Sep 16, 2025

Description

This fixes a couple of the conformance test failures, as well as:

  • Setting up infra to split tests into "expected failures" vs "unsupported features"
  • Updating the testproxy and converting it to TypeScript

@product-auto-label product-auto-label bot added size: m Pull request size is medium. api: bigtable Issues related to the googleapis/nodejs-bigtable API. labels Sep 16, 2025
@product-auto-label product-auto-label bot added size: l Pull request size is large. and removed size: m Pull request size is medium. labels Feb 11, 2026
@generated-files-bot
Copy link

generated-files-bot bot commented Feb 11, 2026

Warning: This pull request is touching the following templated files:

  • .kokoro/mandatory-conformance.sh - .kokoro files are templated and should be updated in synthtool
  • .github/CODEOWNERS - CODEOWNERS should instead be modified via the codeowner_team property in .repo-metadata.json

@product-auto-label product-auto-label bot added size: xl Pull request size is extra large. and removed size: l Pull request size is large. labels Feb 12, 2026
@feywind feywind marked this pull request as ready for review February 24, 2026 19:19
@feywind feywind requested a review from a team as a code owner February 24, 2026 19:19
@feywind feywind changed the title tests: conformance test fixes tests: conformance test fixes 1 Feb 24, 2026
Copy link
Contributor

@danieljbruce danieljbruce left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Overall the migration to typescript looks great and there are a few thoughts I would mention and post before doing the rest of the review.

  1. We can just skip the Service Path tests and then the system-test CI check should pass. I think before these tests were just skipped anyways and used as a handy tool to be sure that the universe domain feature was working correctly.

  2. Apart from that I think we should add TestReadRows_NoRetry_OutOfOrderError, TestReadRows_Generic_CloseClient and TestReadRows_Generic_DeadlineExceeded tests to the known_failures.txt list so that the CI check for mandatory conformance turns green. This tool is in place to make it really easy for us to determine exactly what we need to fix next.

Copy link
Contributor

@danieljbruce danieljbruce left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Overall the test proxy modernization looks really good. Outside of that there are a few comments about some of the proxy changes and source code changes we should discuss, but after those are resolved this should be good for approval.


if (bigtable) {
await bigtable[v2].close();
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't know if we want to remove this. I notice that TestReadRows_Generic_CloseClient is now failing so this may be causing a regression in the conformance tests so I would consider adding the following lines back in:

await bigtable[v2].close();
clientMap.delete(clientId);

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

...this might've been a mistake on my part. Thanks!


const v2 = Symbol.for('v2');

export function createBigtableClient(bigtable: Bigtable) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nit: If this createBigtableClient method is used in only one place then I would prefer to keep this method in the file where it is used to encapsulate things a little more.

Same idea with getBigtableClient.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It turns out that was a mistake anyway, related to the close bugs. This is now used in two other files. The reason I'd moved it out like this is just to make the create/close logic closer together.


if (bigtable) {
await bigtable[v2].close();
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should we delete this line and clientMap.delete(clientId); line? They might be causing a regression making the TestReadRows_Generic_CloseClient test fail.

@product-auto-label product-auto-label bot added size: l Pull request size is large. and removed size: xl Pull request size is extra large. labels Feb 25, 2026
@feywind feywind added the owlbot:ignore instruct owl-bot to ignore a PR label Feb 25, 2026
@product-auto-label product-auto-label bot added size: xl Pull request size is extra large. and removed size: l Pull request size is large. labels Feb 25, 2026
@feywind feywind added owlbot:run Add this label to trigger the Owlbot post processor. and removed owlbot:ignore instruct owl-bot to ignore a PR labels Feb 25, 2026
@gcf-owl-bot gcf-owl-bot bot removed the owlbot:run Add this label to trigger the Owlbot post processor. label Feb 25, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

api: bigtable Issues related to the googleapis/nodejs-bigtable API. size: xl Pull request size is extra large.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants