[Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v2 2/2] lua: return getaddrinfo() errors

[Roman Khabibov]

> On Apr 24, 2020, at 20:18, Sergey Ostanevich <sergos at tarantool.org> wrote:
> 
> On 24 апр 14:42, Roman Khabibov wrote:
>> Hi! Thanks for the review.
>> 
>>> On Apr 16, 2020, at 13:27, Sergey Ostanevich <sergos at tarantool.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 06 апр 05:08, Roman Khabibov wrote:
>>>>>> +test_run:cmd("setopt delimiter ';'")
>>>>>> +function check_err(err)
>>>>>> +    if err == 'getaddrinfo: nodename nor servname provided, or not known' or
>>>>>> +       err == 'getaddrinfo: Servname not supported for ai_socktype' or
>>>>>> +       err == 'getaddrinfo: Name or service not known' or
>>>>>> +       err == 'getaddrinfo: hostname nor servname provided, or not known' or
>>>>>> +       err == 'getaddrinfo: Temporary failure in name resolution' or
>>>>>> +       err == 'getaddrinfo: Name could not be resolved at this time' then
>>>>>> +        return true
>>>>>> +    end
>>>>>> +    return false
>>>>>> +end;
>>>>> I really doubt that different error messages from the set above will appear 
>>>>> for the same error on different platforms. Could you please check for particular 
>>>>> output for each case you trigger below?
>>>> Look at that:
>>>> https://travis-ci.org/github/tarantool/tarantool/jobs/546115892#L3581 - Linux failed
>>>> https://travis-ci.org/github/tarantool/tarantool/jobs/546115893#L3100 - macOS isn’t
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Exactly, this means for the error EAI_NONAME those OSes have differnet
>>> messages. But you've put different errors in one bunch - I meant it
>>> should never return 'Temporary failure in name resolution' as a result
>>> for EAI_SERVICE, right? 
>>> 
>>> Are you testing for correct error returned for a particular case?
>> Don’t understand the question. I just check error messages that appeared
>> after travis/gitlab testing.
>> 
> Different errors makes different messages. 
> Same error can make different messages on different platforms. 
> 
> You put both into one: you don't care about what exact error came to
> you, right? 
Right. The most important thing here is that the error is from getaddrinfo.

> Is it something expected from this patch at all - to differentiate the
> errors?
The idea of this patch is to throw a internal getaddrinfo error instead
of the obscure common  I/O error.

>>> Otherwise looks good.
>>> 
>>> Sergos