[Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v2 1/3] test: corrected reported error lines

[Timur Safin]

: From: Igor Munkin <imun at tarantool.org>
: Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v2 1/3] test: corrected reported
: error lines
: 
: Timur,
: 
 
: > :
: > : Minor: Strictly saying :123 part is also broken.
: >
: > O_o, why? Could you please clarify? We report it as line number in the
: > source file, in this case tkt-9a8b09f8e6.test.lua:123 was exactly the
: > caller location?
: 
: Do you need the location of definition (:123) or location where the
: function execution is stopped at the moment (:142)? If I got your point,
: you prefer the latter, right?

FWIW, currentline is pointing _exactly_ to the line number in the file
Which was calling this error, not to the start of function definition. 
At least in our cases, when we not introduce any extra do scopes.

[Now I start to worry with the question when .linedefined is not 0
and whether we would need to sum .currentline and .linedefined to 
get actual source line in the file?]

: > if currentline may be missing in the traceback object for any reason.
: 
: It may not, considering the flags used for obtaining debug info.
: 
: > If it's impossible for the set of requested flags, then I'll get rid
: > of linedefined here.
: 
: Yes, <currentline> field is provided by 'l' flag[1]. Please, get rid of
: <linedefined> and the default 0 and drop a few sentences regarding this
: change in commit message.

Please see my worries about .linedefined above. Currently it's in main scope,
when it will be not main scope, do any extra do create separate scope? 
Could .currentline be .linedefined related or it's guaranteed to be 
Counted from start of file?

: 
: [1]: https://www.lua.org/manual/5.1/manual.html#lua_getinfo
: 
: --
: Best regards,
: IM