IssueTracker

This bug been identified as part of Chrome's flake reduction initiative. Resolution of this issue is critical because it has a large impact on the stability of Chrome CI/CQ. Resolving these issues will be essential to meet Chrome’s flake reduction goals.

This bug has led to a large number of gardened builds failing in the last 7 days. List of gardened build failures caused by this cluster can be viewed at:
https://data.corp.google.com/sites/chrome_generic_flakiness_dashboard_datasite/build_failures/?av=rpqxzw:ktu56&fb=is_sheriff_or_cq_builder:eq:true&f=cluster_name:in:b%2F400617105
or in LUCI Analysis and grouped by builders:
https://luci-milo.appspot.com/ui/tests/p/chromium/rules/3519deb73451d0c9b91241ccea2406fa?tab=recent-failures&filterToMetric=builds-failed-due-to-flaky-tests&groupBy=builder&orderBy=invocationFailures

Please consider the following strategies to mitigate the impact from this issue which are rated in order of resolution preference:
1. Resolve the underlying test issue.
2. Move the flaky test from Critical Builders to FYI Builder
3. Disable test (least desirable as it reduces test coverage) and add a Test-Disabled label to this issue. The disabled tests might continue running in reviver builders (go/test-reviver), see config [1] for a list of supported builders.

http://go/resolve-chrome-top-flakes provides more information on the tools available for resolving flaky tests.

When investigating this failure, you may identify this bug is too broad (encompasses multiple different issues) or too narrow (only captures one part of a larger issue). If this applies, you can combine issues[2]  or split issues[3].

Links:
[1] https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:infra/config/subprojects/reviver/reviver.star
[2] https://luci-analysis.appspot.com/help#combining-issues
[3] https://luci-analysis.appspot.com/help#splitting-issues

Why LUCI Analysis posted this comment: https://luci-milo.appspot.com/ui/tests/help#policy-activated (Policy ID: builds-failed-due-to-flaky-tests)

Thanks for the clarification! I have reproduced the issue and would like to work on fixing it.

Could you please assign this issue to me?