Re[2]: [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] test: use wait_cond to check follow status
Sergei Voronezhskii
sergw at tarantool.org
Thu Nov 1 00:38:21 MSK 2018
>Понедельник, 29 октября 2018, 13:41 +03:00 от Alexander Turenko <alexander.turenko at tarantool.org>:
>
>> >> If `test_run:wait_cond()` found a not 'follow` status it returns true.
>> >> Which immediately causes an error.
>> >>
>> >> Fixes #3734
>> >> Part of #2436, #3232
>> >> ---
>> >> test/replication/misc.result | 17 +++++++++++------
>> >> test/replication/misc.test.lua | 15 +++++++++------
>> >> 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>> >>
>> >
>> >> diff --git a/test/replication/misc.test.lua b/test/replication/misc.test.lua
>> >> index 06ad974db..3866eb3ac 100644
>> >> --- a/test/replication/misc.test.lua
>> >> +++ b/test/replication/misc.test.lua
>> >> @@ -53,15 +53,18 @@ fiber=require('fiber')
>> >> box.cfg{replication_timeout = 0.01, replication_connect_timeout=0.01}
>> >> _ = box.schema.space.create('test_timeout'):create_index('pk')
>> >> test_run:cmd("setopt delimiter ';'")
>> >> +function wait_follow(replicaA, replicaB)
>> >> + return test_run:wait_cond(function()
>> >> + return replicaA.status ~= 'follow' or replicaB.status ~= 'follow'
>> >> + end, 0.01)
>> >> +end ;
>> >> function test_timeout()
>> >> for i = 0, 99 do
>> >> + local replicaA = box.info.replication[1].upstream or box.info.replication[2].upstream
>> >> + local replicaB = box.info.replication[3].upstream or box.info.replication[2].upstream
>> >> box.space.test_timeout:replace({1})
>> >> - fiber.sleep(0.005)
>> >> - local rinfo = box.info.replication
>> >> - if rinfo[1].upstream and rinfo[1].upstream.status ~= 'follow' or
>> >> - rinfo[2].upstream and rinfo[2].upstream.status ~= 'follow' or
>> >> - rinfo[3].upstream and rinfo[3].upstream.status ~= 'follow' then
>> >> - return error('Replication broken')
>> >> + if wait_follow(replicaA, replicaB) then
>> >> + return error(box.info.replication)
>> >
>> >AFAIU, this test case checks that replicas do not leave from 'follow'
>> >state even for a short time period. We should wait for 'follow' state
>> >before the loop and perform some amount of attemps to catch an another
>> >state. I don't sure, though. Georgy should draw the line.
>> >
>> >I still think correction of test cases is a developer responsibility. If
>> >you want to do it, please, discuss it with the author before. This will
>> >save us some time we spend now on those extra review iterations.
>>
>> We discussed with Georgy how to do it:
>> function test_timeout()
>> local replicaA = box.info.replication[1].upstream or box.info.replication[2].upstream
>> local replicaB = box.info.replication[3].upstream or box.info.replication[2].upstream
>> local follows = test_run:wait_cond(function()
>> return replicaA.status == 'follow' or replicaB.status == 'follow'
>> end, 0.1)
>> if not follows then error('replicas not in follow status') end
>> for i = 0, 99 do
>> box.space.test_timeout:replace({1})
>> if wait_follow(replicaA, replicaB) then
>> return error(box.info.replication)
>> end
>> end
>> return true
>> end ;
>>
>> Branch was updated.
>
>Now I understand the approach. It looks good. I think it should be
>commented inside the test, because it is counter-intuitive that wait_xxx
>function returns true when something went wrong.
Updated wait_follow with comment:
-- The wait_cond checking the function in loop while it returns false.
-- It returns true if replicas status changed from follow state.
-- Which immediately causes an error
>WBR, Alexander Turenko.
--
Sergei Voronezhskii
More information about the Tarantool-patches
mailing list