codecov[bot]
commented
1 month ago Codecov Report
Attention: Patch coverage is 90.62500% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
Project coverage is 80.41%. Comparing base (
211903e) to head (6f5984c). Report is 3 commits behind head on master.
| Files | Patch % | Lines |
|---|---|---|
| dlrover/python/master/node/worker.py | 85.71% | 2 Missing :warning: |
| dlrover/python/master/servicer.py | 66.66% | 1 Missing :warning: |
Additional details and impacted files
```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #1250 +/- ## ========================================== - Coverage 80.41% 80.41% -0.01% ========================================== Files 218 218 Lines 19800 19820 +20 ========================================== + Hits 15923 15938 +15 - Misses 3877 3882 +5 ```:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
report_rdzv_params.For back compatibility(worker who don't report the join timeout): Use the default 600s as the 'join timeout'.
For protection: The timeout range is (600s, 3600s).
Why are the changes needed?
Previously, we used the pending timeout period as the criterion for determining insufficiency. However, considering that users may configure the networking timeout period themselves, it is more scientific to directly use the networking timeout period for this configuration.
The current definition of this timeout period is 1.5 times the networking timeout period, which is used to avoid scenarios where errors cannot be recovered within a complete round of the networking timeout period.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No.
How was this patch tested?
UT.