CI Failing on windows 3.11 about dask HOT 9 OPEN

During yesterday's maintainers sync, @rjzamora and @charlesbluca volunteered to investigate this.

from dask.

Just a note that this seems similar to #10604 (which is currently being ignored for Python-3.12).

from dask.

Looking at the past few workflow runs, it seems like test_describe_empty fails much less consistently than test_setitem_hardmask, which should be addressed (along with #10604) in #10701 - are we okay with marking the test as flaky for now on Windows?

from dask.

Checking in. What's the status here? @charlesbluca do I take it from your comment above that you're not able to resolve this without someone else (James maybe?) getting involved?

from dask.

Checking in. What's the status here? @charlesbluca do I take it from your comment above that you're not able to resolve this without someone else (James maybe?) getting involved?

This Issue is reporting two distinct CI failures. The first failure was showing up consistently in CI, and has now addressed/closed by #10701. The second failure seems to be more of a flake (it does not show up often in CI, and Charles could not reproduce it locally). I'm sure Charles and I can resolve the second failure if it becomes a persistent problem, but I'd rather not prioritize it immediately.

from dask.

The second failure seems to be more of a flake

To be clear, I'd like for flaky CI to really scare us. My experience is that CI that is sometimes red causes people to mostly disregard signals in CI, which causes more things to leak into CI. dask/distributed fell into this trap when I stopped actively maintaining it and I think it has caused hundreds of hours of lost human time. I'd be sad if dask/dask fell into this trap as well. (although of course the concurrent nature of dask/distributed makes it harder over there than here; I'm hopeful that we can do a better job in dask/dask where it's easier).

from dask.

(not to say that this is strictly on you @rjzamora, it's not)

from dask.

To be clear, I'd like for flaky CI to really scare us.

Yes agree. Sorry to make it sound like we shouldn't care about the second CI failure. Ignoring flaky CI is indeed dangerous!

What I'm trying to communicate is that we were able prioritize/investigate the CI-blocking problem before leaving for holiday time off, but we probably won't be able available to address the flaky failure for the next few weeks. (also, I'm sorry to be speaking for Charles, but he will be away until January).

from dask.

from dask.