>Суббота, 20 октября 2018, 2:24 +03:00 от Alexander Turenko <alexander.turenko@tarantool.org>:
>
>Hi!
>
>See below.
>
>WBR, Alexander Turenko.
>
>On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 07:17:20PM +0300, Sergei Voronezhskii wrote:
>> 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.
>
>>          end
>>      end
>>      return true
>> -- 
>> 2.18.0
>


-- 
Sergei Voronezhskii