blockUntilIdle of a parent can't always be correctly implemented as
return ChildA.blockUntilIdle() && ChildB.blockUntilIdle()
The problem is that B can schedule work on A while we're waiting on it.
I believe this is theoretically possible today between CDB and background index.
Modules open more possibilities and it's hard to reason about all of them.
I don't have a perfect fix, and the abstraction is too good to lose. this patch:
- calls out why we block on workscheduler first, and asserts correctness
- documents the issue
- reduces the practical possibility of spuriously returning true significantly
This function is ultimately only for testing, so we're driving down flake rate.
clang-tidy: error: constructor for 'clang::clangd::ClangdServer' must explicitly initialize the member 'WorkScheduler' which does not have a default constructor [clang-diagnostic-error]
not useful