You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
io.mockk.it.ParallelTest#test() takes ~2min 37s
It was introduced in 6aa4827 and the repeat(500) { verify {...} } is what takes the majority of its time.
Do we need this many iterations (30 parallels of 500 calls) to test the right behavior? And could it be tested differently?
io.mockk.it.ProxyWeakReferenceTest#test() is always skipped on CI, but fails locally.
It currently draws ~20G of heap space to run with the current configuration 🤯
The test tries to allocate ByteArray(10 * 1024 * 1024) (10MiB) * 1000.
Allocating this many ByteArray should not be an issue, and actually, replacing the spyked call with something else correctly GC. This certainly means there is a memory leak happening from the spyk method call!
Not sure why exactly, but reverting this commit fc4b0c5 seems to make this test pass correctly (although JvmMockKProxyMakerTest#garbageCollectedProxy() now fails with MockKAgentException: Value for this result is not assigned)
Seeing the same behaviour on my system. While working on a potential fix for #1170 I found myself unable to run the full test suite on my system without running into OutOfMemoryError. Then I reverted the commit as suggested by @SimonMarquis and the tests passed.
Expected Behavior
The CI test suite should run fairly quickly.
Current Behavior
io.mockk.it.ParallelTest#test()
takes ~2min 37sIt was introduced in 6aa4827 and the
repeat(500) { verify {...} }
is what takes the majority of its time.Do we need this many iterations (30 parallels of 500 calls) to test the right behavior? And could it be tested differently?
io.mockk.it.ProxyWeakReferenceTest#test()
is always skipped on CI, but fails locally.It currently draws ~20G of heap space to run with the current configuration 🤯
The test tries to allocate
ByteArray(10 * 1024 * 1024)
(10MiB) * 1000.Allocating this many ByteArray should not be an issue, and actually, replacing the spyked call with something else correctly GC. This certainly means there is a memory leak happening from the
spyk
method call!References:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: