AI-generated analysisPublished automatically and not human-verified. Validated context appears in community notes below.
← Watch feed
Informational 15 Bitcoin

CI: reduce parallelism for pytest.

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by Rusty Russell

100/100 · Strong
CI: reduce parallelism for pytest.

In November 2022 we seemed to increase parallelism from 2 and 3 to 10!
That is a huge load for these CI boxes, and does explain some of our
flakes.

We only run in parallel because some tests sleep, but it's diminishing
returns (GH runners have 4 VCPUs, 16GB RAM).

This reduces it so:
- Normal runs are -n 4
- Valgrind runs are -n 2
- Sanitizer runs are -n 3

If I use my beefy build box (64BG RAM) but reduce it to 4 CPUs:

Time for pytest -n 5:
Time for pytest -n 4:
Time for pytest -n 3:

Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
✓ Descriptive subject✓ Names a concrete action or component✓ Uses a recognizable type or scope✓ Provides detailed explanatory context✓ Explains rationale or failure mode✓ Mentions testing or verification
The short version

What changed, and why it matters

This commit only changes how many tests run at the same time in the project's automated CI (continuous integration) system. It lowers the number of parallel test jobs from 10 to 4 in most cases, and sets specific values for Valgrind and sanitizer test runs. There is no change to the actual Core Lightning software, its network protocol, wallet handling, or any user-facing behavior. It is purely an infrastructure/reliability tweak to reduce flaky test failures caused by overloaded CI machines.

Recommended action

No security action needed. This is a CI configuration change. Reviewers may optionally verify that the reduced parallelism actually improves CI reliability and does not significantly slow feedback times.

Security signals we found

No strong security signals were identified.

Risk score

Why this scored 15/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 0/30
Exploitability 0/25
Stealth signal 0/15
Affected reach 0/15
Confidence 10/10
Evidence quality 5/5
Human-validated context

Community notes

Notes can correct, qualify, or add evidence to the AI analysis. Every note shown here has been validated by a human moderator.

No validated notes yet.

The AI analysis stands alone for now. Submit a note if you can add evidence or important context.