Skip to content

Conversation

@rwb27
Copy link
Collaborator

@rwb27 rwb27 commented Jan 12, 2026

Windows timing jitter is not infrequently bad enough that it takes longer than 0.04s for some of the cancellation-related tests to run. I've increased the timings to stop them failing because of jitter.

Windows timing jitter is not infrequently bad enough that it takes longer than 0.04s for some of the cancellation-related tests to run. I've increased the timings to stop them failing because of jitter.
@rwb27 rwb27 requested a review from julianstirling January 12, 2026 15:23
@barecheck
Copy link

barecheck bot commented Jan 12, 2026

Barecheck - Code coverage report

Total: 96.33%

Your code coverage diff: 0.00% ▴

✅ All code changes are covered

Copy link
Contributor

@julianstirling julianstirling left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I have occasionally seen one of these fail in Linux. Nothing is immune from timing jitter, these tolerances are still tight enough to be a test of functionality.

@rwb27 rwb27 merged commit 1b6ee9a into main Jan 12, 2026
14 checks passed
@rwb27 rwb27 deleted the looser-timing-constraints branch January 12, 2026 16:24
@rwb27
Copy link
Collaborator Author

rwb27 commented Jan 12, 2026

I've definitely seen them fail more often under 'doze, but I agree.

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.

3 participants