[Failing Test]: bigquery.StorageApiSinkCreateIfNeededIT.testCreateManyTables[1]

[Abacn]

What happened?

Failing during release verification. Most likely flaky test. However, the assertion error suggests the tables are not always created.

Error message:

Error Message
java.lang.AssertionError: 
Expected: <100>
     but: was <99>
Stacktrace
java.lang.AssertionError: 
Expected: <100>
     but: was <99>
	at org.hamcrest.MatcherAssert.assertThat(MatcherAssert.java:18)
	at org.hamcrest.MatcherAssert.assertThat(MatcherAssert.java:6)
	at org.apache.beam.sdk.io.gcp.bigquery.StorageApiSinkCreateIfNeededIT.assertTablesCreated(StorageApiSinkCreateIfNeededIT.java:116)
	at org.apache.beam.sdk.io.gcp.bigquery.StorageApiSinkCreateIfNeededIT.testCreateManyTables(StorageApiSinkCreateIfNeededIT.java:100)

Issue Failure

Failure: Test is flaky

Issue Priority

Priority: 1 (unhealthy code / failing or flaky postcommit so we cannot be sure the product is healthy)

Issue Components

• Component: Python SDK
• Component: Java SDK
• Component: Go SDK
• Component: Typescript SDK
• Component: IO connector
• Component: Beam examples
• Component: Beam playground
• Component: Beam katas
• Component: Website
• Component: Spark Runner
• Component: Flink Runner
• Component: Samza Runner
• Component: Twister2 Runner
• Component: Hazelcast Jet Runner
• Component: Google Cloud Dataflow Runner

[kennknowles]

Is it possibly an eventual consistency thing?

@reuvenlax for storage api

[kennknowles]

and @johnjcasey and @ahmedabu98

[reuvenlax]

I think these writes and SQL queries are supposed to be fully consistent, not eventually.

…

On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 4:07 PM Kenn Knowles ***@***.***> wrote: and @johnjcasey <https://github.com/johnjcasey> and @ahmedabu98 <https://github.com/ahmedabu98> — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#27314 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFAYJVJUWL56RDUOCDK2UZTXQFOD5ANCNFSM6AAAAAAZZXKOVE> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[johnjcasey]

@ahmedabu98 reading this test, there is nothing that jumps out as the issue. Can you take a look at this?

[ahmedabu98]

Nothing stands out to me either.. I don't remember seeing this test failing, and a scan of the tests over the past month, I see they all succeeded.

Hmmm, not sure why it failed during release verification

[damccorm]

I think this has been resolved, if not it should get picked up by the new tooling