Skip to content

test: dump debug information if http request to firecracker fails #5233

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
May 30, 2025

Conversation

roypat
Copy link
Contributor

@roypat roypat commented May 29, 2025

Sometimes, we intermittently see ConnectionRefused errors when doing
http requests to the firecracker API in integration tests. Have the test
framework dump relevant logs in these cases.

Signed-off-by: Patrick Roy [email protected]## Changes

...

Reason

...

License Acceptance

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under
the terms of the Apache 2.0 license. For more information on following Developer
Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check
CONTRIBUTING.md.

PR Checklist

  • I have read and understand CONTRIBUTING.md.
  • I have run tools/devtool checkstyle to verify that the PR passes the
    automated style checks.
  • I have described what is done in these changes, why they are needed, and
    how they are solving the problem in a clear and encompassing way.
  • I have updated any relevant documentation (both in code and in the docs)
    in the PR.
  • I have mentioned all user-facing changes in CHANGELOG.md.
  • If a specific issue led to this PR, this PR closes the issue.
  • When making API changes, I have followed the
    Runbook for Firecracker API changes.
  • I have tested all new and changed functionalities in unit tests and/or
    integration tests.
  • I have linked an issue to every new TODO.

  • This functionality cannot be added in rust-vmm.

roypat added 2 commits May 29, 2025 16:54
Sometimes, we intermittently see `ConnectionRefused` errors when doing
http requests to the firecracker API in integration tests. Have the test
framework dump relevant logs in these cases.

Signed-off-by: Patrick Roy <[email protected]>
If firecracker already died, then the pid file might not exist anymore,
and we get a NoSuchProcess exception from thread_backtraces(). This can
be confusing when debugging failures, because its a secondary error that
only happens during error handling of the actual reason we're dumping
debug information in the first place.

Fix this by simply returning an empty list of threads in this case.

Signed-off-by: Patrick Roy <[email protected]>
@roypat roypat added the Status: Awaiting review Indicates that a pull request is ready to be reviewed label May 29, 2025
Copy link

codecov bot commented May 29, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 82.94%. Comparing base (0324791) to head (f45728d).
Report is 5 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #5233      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   82.89%   82.94%   +0.05%     
==========================================
  Files         250      250              
  Lines       26965    26965              
==========================================
+ Hits        22353    22367      +14     
+ Misses       4612     4598      -14     
Flag Coverage Δ
5.10-c5n.metal 83.38% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
5.10-m5n.metal 83.38% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
5.10-m6a.metal 82.60% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m6g.metal 79.22% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m6i.metal 83.37% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m7a.metal-48xl 82.59% <ø> (?)
5.10-m7g.metal 79.22% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m7i.metal-24xl 83.34% <ø> (?)
5.10-m7i.metal-48xl 83.35% <ø> (?)
5.10-m8g.metal-24xl 79.21% <ø> (?)
5.10-m8g.metal-48xl 79.21% <ø> (?)
6.1-c5n.metal 83.42% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m5n.metal 83.43% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
6.1-m6a.metal 82.65% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m6g.metal 79.22% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
6.1-m6i.metal 83.42% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m7a.metal-48xl 82.63% <ø> (?)
6.1-m7g.metal 79.22% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m7i.metal-24xl 83.44% <ø> (?)
6.1-m7i.metal-48xl 83.44% <ø> (?)
6.1-m8g.metal-24xl 79.21% <ø> (?)
6.1-m8g.metal-48xl 79.21% <ø> (?)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

roypat added 3 commits May 30, 2025 09:00
Make it clear whose creation we are waiting for.

Signed-off-by: Patrick Roy <[email protected]>
In Microvm.spawn(), we try to wait for the firecracker process to
initialize itself and become ready to server requests. We have multiple
checks of varying fidelity in there, and they can be strictly ordered by
this based on what they wait for: e.g. if we wait for SSH availability
(guest userspace is ready), there is no point to _also_ wait for
firecracker's startup message in the logs, as that is always printed
before SSH becomes available. Thus clean this logic up to only do the
one check that has the highest fidelity in any given setup.

While we're at it, update/move some comments.

Then, improve the check for API server readiness to wait for the log
message that signals completion of API server initialization, instead of
just waiting for socket file creation (which happens before we are
actually ready to accept connections on it).

Signed-off-by: Patrick Roy <[email protected]>
Some negative tests check for a failure mode that happens before we can
print the "API server started" log message, which then causes issues in
Microvm.spawn(). Work around this by adjusting some except clauses (it
seems that even in the past we ran into this issue due to the old "does
api socket file exist" check), or setting the log level to WARN, which
also disables the "api server started" check. A special case if the
describe snapshot version check, which runs into issues because the "api
server started" log message is fairly new (1.12), and some older
firecrackers do not print it.

Signed-off-by: Patrick Roy <[email protected]>
@roypat roypat requested a review from pb8o May 30, 2025 10:14
@roypat roypat merged commit fbf24fe into firecracker-microvm:main May 30, 2025
6 of 7 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Status: Awaiting review Indicates that a pull request is ready to be reviewed
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants