Skip to content

fix: use random booking UIDs api/v2 slots e2e tests to prevent test flakiness due to DB unique constraint#27902

Merged
anikdhabal merged 3 commits intocalcom:mainfrom
romitg2:flaky-test-fix/slots-api-v2
Feb 13, 2026
Merged

fix: use random booking UIDs api/v2 slots e2e tests to prevent test flakiness due to DB unique constraint#27902
anikdhabal merged 3 commits intocalcom:mainfrom
romitg2:flaky-test-fix/slots-api-v2

Conversation

@romitg2
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@romitg2 romitg2 commented Feb 12, 2026

What does this PR do?

Fixes flaky e2e tests for seated event slots that were failing due to a unique constraint violation on booking uid

CI link:

https://github.com/calcom/cal.com/actions/runs/21952202582/job/63406722977?pr=27865#step:10:4169

Screenshot 2026-02-12 at 9 04 28 PM
  • Fixes #XXXX (GitHub issue number)
  • Fixes CAL-XXXX (Linear issue number - should be visible at the bottom of the GitHub issue description)

Visual Demo (For contributors especially)

A visual demonstration is strongly recommended, for both the original and new change (video / image - any one).

Video Demo (if applicable):

  • Show screen recordings of the issue or feature.
  • Demonstrate how to reproduce the issue, the behavior before and after the change.

Image Demo (if applicable):

Mandatory Tasks (DO NOT REMOVE

  • I have self-reviewed the code (A decent size PR without self-review might be rejected).
  • I have updated the developer docs in /docs if this PR makes changes that would require a documentation change. If N/A, write N/A here and check the checkbox.
  • I confirm automated tests are in place that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works.

How should this be tested?

  • Are there environment variables that should be set?
  • What are the minimal test data to have?
  • What is expected (happy path) to have (input and output)?
  • Any other important info that could help to test that PR

Checklist

  • I haven't read the contributing guide
  • My code doesn't follow the style guidelines of this project
  • I haven't commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • I haven't checked if my changes generate no new warnings
  • My PR is too large (>500 lines or >10 files) and should be split into smaller PRs

@romitg2 romitg2 requested a review from a team as a code owner February 12, 2026 15:34
@graphite-app graphite-app bot added the community Created by Linear-GitHub Sync label Feb 12, 2026
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@cubic-dev-ai cubic-dev-ai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No issues found across 2 files

@anikdhabal anikdhabal enabled auto-merge (squash) February 12, 2026 16:05
@romitg2
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

romitg2 commented Feb 12, 2026

seems like another unit test failing, @anikdhabal is this known flaky?

Screenshot 2026-02-12 at 9 49 37 PM

@anikdhabal
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

anikdhabal commented Feb 12, 2026

@romitg2 unrelated to this, but yeah flaky unit test not e2e

@anikdhabal anikdhabal merged commit 68abc63 into calcom:main Feb 13, 2026
50 of 57 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

community Created by Linear-GitHub Sync ready-for-e2e size/XS

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants