SQS-406 | E2E Tests: Increase expected latency upper bound for /passthrough/active-orders enpoind ( backport )

[deividaspetraitis]

This PR Increases latency upper bound from 150ms to 450ms based on our current observations via monitoring tools to make tests less noisy.

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Bug Fixes
  • Adjusted the expected latency upper bound to better reflect performance capabilities, increasing from 150ms to 450ms. This change may enhance testing accuracy and align with updated performance benchmarks.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The pull request modifies the constant EXPECTED_LATENCY_UPPER_BOUND_MS in the file tests/test_passthrough.py, changing its value from 150 to 450. This change signifies a substantial increase in the expected upper limit for latency, which may influence performance expectations and testing standards within the application.

Changes

File	Change Summary
tests/test_passthrough.py	Modified EXPECTED_LATENCY_UPPER_BOUND_MS from 150 to 450

Possibly related PRs

• SQS-406 | E2E Tests: Increase expected latency upper bound for /passthrough/active-orders enpoint #514: This PR directly modifies the EXPECTED_LATENCY_UPPER_BOUND_MS constant in tests/test_passthrough.py, changing its value from 150 to 450, which is the same change made in the main PR.

Suggested labels

A:backport/v26.x

Suggested reviewers

• p0mvn
• cryptomatictrader

Poem

In the meadow, we hop with glee,
Latency bounds, now set free!
From 150, we leap to 450,
Performance blooms, as we dance so sprightly.
With each change, our tests will thrive,
A happy rabbit, feeling alive! 🐇✨

---

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  -- I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
  -- Generate unit testing code for this file.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  -- @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
  -- @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  -- @coderabbitai generate interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table.
  -- @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
  -- @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
  -- @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

• Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
• Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
• Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[sonarcloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)

tests/test_passthrough.py (1)

12-12: Approve the latency upper bound adjustment.

The change to increase the EXPECTED_LATENCY_UPPER_BOUND_MS from 150 to 450 aligns with the PR objective to adjust the expected latency upper bound for the /passthrough/active-orders endpoint based on current observations. This adjustment aims to create a more stable testing environment by accommodating the observed latency variations, thereby reducing false negatives in test results.

Consider adding a comment to explain the reason for the change and the source of the new value. For example:

# Increased the expected latency upper bound from 150 to 450 ms based on 
# current observations gathered through monitoring tools. This adjustment 
# aims to create a more stable testing environment by accommodating the 
# observed latency variations.
EXPECTED_LATENCY_UPPER_BOUND_MS = 450

Additionally, it is recommended to monitor the latency after the change to ensure it remains within the new upper bound. If the latency consistently exceeds the new threshold, further investigation and optimization may be required.

Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL

Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between dd03e56 and 72e8e26.

Files selected for processing (1)

• tests/test_passthrough.py (1 hunks)