br: fix flaky test TestGCServiceSafePoint

[Tristan1900]

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: close #58627

Problem Summary:

What changed and how does it work?

test will fail if when try to advance the new TS is less now hardcoded 5, make it 1 so less likely to fail.
Tried to make it 0 but a bunch of tests failed, don't know why.

Check List

Tests

• Unit test
• Integration test
• Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
• No need to test

  • I checked and no code files have been changed.

Side effects

• Performance regression: Consumes more CPU
• Performance regression: Consumes more Memory
• Breaking backward compatibility

Documentation

• Affects user behaviors
• Contains syntax changes
• Contains variable changes
• Contains experimental features
• Changes MySQL compatibility

Release note

Please refer to Release Notes Language Style Guide to write a quality release note.

None

[ti-chi-bot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign bornchanger for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• br/OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[tiprow]

Hi @Tristan1900. Thanks for your PR.

PRs from untrusted users cannot be marked as trusted with /ok-to-test in this repo meaning untrusted PR authors can never trigger tests themselves. Collaborators can still trigger tests on the PR using /test all.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 74.7687%. Comparing base (cdcc291) to head (74a7855).
Report is 6 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##             master     #58628        +/-   ##
================================================
+ Coverage   73.5455%   74.7687%   +1.2232%     
================================================
  Files          1680       1695        +15     
  Lines        464730     466129      +1399     
================================================
+ Hits         341788     348519      +6731     
+ Misses       102118      96047      -6071     
- Partials      20824      21563       +739     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration	46.0148% <ø> (?)
unit	72.3061% <ø> (+0.0123%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Components	Coverage Δ
dumpling	52.6910% <ø> (ø)
parser	∅ <ø> (∅)
br	61.5302% <ø> (+15.7496%)	⬆️

[Tristan1900]

/assign @YuJuncen