New issue
Advanced search Search tips
Note: Color blocks (like or ) mean that a user may not be available. Tooltip shows the reason.

Issue 843686 link

Starred by 2 users

Issue metadata

Status: Assigned
Owner:
Cc:
Components:
EstimatedDays: ----
NextAction: ----
OS: ----
Pri: 2
Type: Bug



Sign in to add a comment

Flake Analysis attempts unrelated revisions during bisect after looking back

Project Member Reported by liaoyuke@chromium.org, May 16 2018

Issue description

https://findit-for-me.appspot.com/waterfall/flake?key=ag9zfmZpbmRpdC1mb3ItbWVy1QELEhdNYXN0ZXJGbGFrZUFuYWx5c2lzUm9vdCKeAWNocm9taXVtLm1lbW9yeS9MaW51eCBDaHJvbWl1bU9TIE1TYW4gVGVzdHMvNzE3MC9pbnRlcmFjdGl2ZV91aV90ZXN0cy9SRzkzYm14dllXUk9iM1JwWm1sallYUnBiMjVVWlhOMExsTnBiWFZzZEdGdVpXOTFjMGx1WTI5bmJtbDBiMEZ1WkU1dmNtMWhiRVJ2ZDI1c2IyRmtjdz09DAsSE01hc3RlckZsYWtlQW5hbHlzaXMYAQw

in the above example, the look back algorithm identified 558333 and 558284 as the suspected range, and decided to start bisect in that range.

The first position to bisect should be (558333 + 558284) / 2 = 558308, however, there is also a data point with revision: 558332, which is greater than 558308. So, 558332 should not be attempted at all.
 

Sign in to add a comment