From c9a991bbb8d560b786c76cc2e173fcf7a3571e1c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ed_ Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2026 18:14:18 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] test(live_workflow): bump project switch wait timeout 30s -> 120s The 30s wait_for_project_switch timeout was an excessive constraint. In batch context, prior sims' AI discussion turn workers saturate the 8-worker io_pool, queueing this switch for tens of seconds. The other defensive waits in the test (warmup 60s, prior switch 60s) already use 60s+, so 30s was the inconsistent outlier. User confirmed: 'I think not completing in 30s is an excessive constraint if thats whats going on.' Verification: - test_full_live_workflow isolation: 11.69s PASS - 7-test batch (test_full_live_workflow + 4 extended sims + 2 markdown): 85.83s PASS --- tests/test_live_workflow.py | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/tests/test_live_workflow.py b/tests/test_live_workflow.py index db943870..b60489e9 100644 --- a/tests/test_live_workflow.py +++ b/tests/test_live_workflow.py @@ -88,7 +88,9 @@ def test_full_live_workflow(live_gui) -> None: # Wait for project switch to complete (deterministic, condition-based). # Replaces the prior 10x1s blind poll of derived state. - status = client.wait_for_project_switch(expected_path=temp_project_path, timeout=30.0) + # Timeout is 120s: in batch context, prior sims' AI discussion turn workers + # can saturate the 8-worker io_pool, queueing this switch for tens of seconds. + status = client.wait_for_project_switch(expected_path=temp_project_path, timeout=120.0) assert not status.get("timeout"), ( f"Project switch did not complete in 30s. Last status: {status}" )