Skip to content

Strengthen regression coverage for #25 and #26 - #55

Merged
knifecake merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
test/issue-25-26-regressions
Sep 6, 2026
Merged

knifecake merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
test/issue-25-26-regressions

Conversation

@knifecake

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

The claiming regression in #25 and the missing-process logging error in #26 need tests that detect the original failures. The existing pool test passed even with the broken logging code because it only checked that perform() ran and never inspected the executor's Future.

  • Add a transaction test that commits a higher-priority job on another connection after claims are inserted but before they are retrieved. Assert that the original selection is returned, ready and claimed jobs do not overlap, and subsequent claims drain the queue without reclaiming a job.
  • Replace the pool test's sleep with Future.result(timeout=5) so background exceptions fail the test. Check completion logging, restored capacity, and the idle callback.
  • Add an Unreleased changelog entry. No runtime code changes.

Validation:

  • Full suite on isolated PostgreSQL 17.4: 164 tests passed (uv run python runtests.py, with database URLs on port 55439 because local port 5432 is occupied).
  • make lint and commit hooks passed.
  • Historical mutation check: restoring pre-Fix some concurrent claiming issues #28 lock_candidates() makes the new claiming test fail because it returns no claimed jobs; restoring pre-Fix process supervision race conditions #29 Pool.post() makes the strengthened pool test raise the reported AttributeError. Both tests pass with current implementations.

Related to #25 and #26. These tests establish coverage for specific failure paths; they do not establish that every cause of either report is resolved.

@knifecake
knifecake marked this pull request as ready for review September 6, 2026 17:58
@chatgpt-codex-connector

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Sep 6, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review Status Commit Review trigger
📝 Code Review Completed 2026-09-06T18:01:55.982818Z 54a2a68 Draft marked ready
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 54a2a68dab

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

Comment thread tests/test_executions.py Outdated
@knifecake
knifecake merged commit 740e2ac into main Sep 6, 2026
3 checks passed
@knifecake
knifecake deleted the test/issue-25-26-regressions branch September 6, 2026 18:09
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.

1 participant