Hi Igor, thanks for your comments, I’ve used all of them in the code.   >Пятница, 28 февраля 2020, 21:42 +03:00 от Igor Munkin : >  >Sasha, > >Thanks for the patch. I left some comments below, please consider them. > >On 27.02.20, Alexander V. Tikhonov wrote: >> Cleaned up the tests code: >> - added local definitions for the variables >> - added os.exit() routine at the tests finish >> - changed added information messages to test:ok() calls > >I propose to reword the commit message the following way: >| test: cleanup tests code >| >| Cleaned up the tests code according to the Lua style guide: >| - made scoped variables local >| - added os.exit call at the end of the test chunk >| - adjusted the messages in test:ok calls > >General comment: please adjust the test names regarding the changes I >proposed in the second patch. Ok. > >> >> Part of #4655 >> --- >> test/fix_string_find_recording.test.lua | 6 +++--- >> test/fold_bug_LuaJIT_505.test.lua | 7 ++++--- >> test/fold_bug_LuaJIT_524.test.lua | 4 ++-- >> test/gh.test.lua | 8 ++++---- >> test/pairsmm_tarantool_4560.test.lua | 8 +++++--- >> test/table_chain_bug_LuaJIT_494.test.lua | 23 ++++++++++++----------- >> test/unsink_64_kptr.test.lua | 7 ++++--- >> 7 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-) >> > > > >> diff --git a/test/fold_bug_LuaJIT_505.test.lua b/test/fold_bug_LuaJIT_505.test.lua >> index 2fee069..3b7d7df 100755 >> --- a/test/fold_bug_LuaJIT_505.test.lua >> +++ b/test/fold_bug_LuaJIT_505.test.lua >> @@ -1,8 +1,8 @@ >> #!/usr/bin/env tarantool >> >> -tap = require('tap') >> +local tap = require('tap') >> >> -test = tap.test("505") >> +local test = tap.test("lj-505-fold-icorrect-behavior") >> test:plan(1) >> >> -- Test file to demonstrate Lua fold machinery icorrect behavior, details: >> @@ -16,5 +16,6 @@ for _ = 1, 20 do >> local pos_b = string.find(value2, "b", 2, true) >> assert(pos_b == 2, "FAIL: position of 'b' is " .. pos_b) >> end >> +test:ok(true, "LuaJIT/LuaJIT gh-505 assert not occured") > >Message is absolutely non-informative. I propose to reword it: >| "string.find offset aritmetics wasn't broken while recording" Done. >> >> -test:ok("PASS") >> +os.exit(test:check() and 0 or 1) > > > >> diff --git a/test/table_chain_bug_LuaJIT_494.test.lua b/test/table_chain_bug_LuaJIT_494.test.lua >> index 06c0f0d..3007360 100755 >> --- a/test/table_chain_bug_LuaJIT_494.test.lua >> +++ b/test/table_chain_bug_LuaJIT_494.test.lua >> @@ -1,8 +1,8 @@ >> #!/usr/bin/env tarantool >> >> -tap = require('tap') >> +local tap = require('tap') >> >> -test = tap.test("494") >> +local test = tap.test("lj-494-table-chain-infinite-loop") >> test:plan(1) >> >> -- Test file to demonstrate Lua table hash chain bugs discussed in >> @@ -11,19 +11,19 @@ test:plan(1) >> -- https://gist.github.com/corsix/1fc9b13a2dd5f3659417b62dd54d4500 >> >> --- Plumbing >> -ffi = require"ffi" >> -ffi.cdef"char* strstr(const char*, const char*)" >> -strstr = ffi.C.strstr >> -cast = ffi.cast >> -str_hash_offset = cast("uint32_t*", strstr("*", ""))[-2] == 1 and 3 or 2 >> +local ffi = require("ffi") >> +ffi.cdef("char* strstr(const char*, const char*)") >> +local strstr = ffi.C.strstr >> +local cast = ffi.cast >> +local str_hash_offset = cast("uint32_t*", strstr("*", ""))[-2] == 1 and 3 or 2 >> function str_hash(s) >> return cast("uint32_t*", strstr(s, "")) - str_hash_offset >> end >> -table_new = require"table.new" >> +local table_new = require("table.new") >> >> --- Prepare some objects >> -victims = {} >> -orig_hash = {} >> +local victims = {} >> +local orig_hash = {} >> for c in ("abcdef"):gmatch"." do >> v = c .. "{09add58a-13a4-44e0-a52c-d44d0f9b2b95}" >> victims[c] = v >> @@ -174,5 +174,6 @@ collectgarbage() >> for c, v in pairs(victims) do >> str_hash(v)[0] = orig_hash[c] >> end >> +test:ok(true, "LuaJIT/LuaJIT gh-494 successfully checked commit a7dc9e8d23315217c9fe0029bc8ae12c03306b33") > >Message is absolutely non-informative. I propose to reword it: >| "table keys collisions are resolved properly (no assertions failed)" Done. >> >> -test:ok("PASS") >> +os.exit(test:check() and 0 or 1) >> diff --git a/test/unsink_64_kptr.test.lua b/test/unsink_64_kptr.test.lua >> index 8995763 ..a618fd2 100755 >> --- a/test/unsink_64_kptr.test.lua >> +++ b/test/unsink_64_kptr.test.lua >> @@ -1,8 +1,8 @@ >> #!/usr/bin/env tarantool >> >> -tap = require('tap') >> +local tap = require('tap') >> >> -test = tap.test("232") >> +local test = tap.test("or-232-unsink-64-kptr") >> test:plan(1) >> >> --- From: Thibault Charbonnier < thibaultcha@me.com > >> @@ -40,5 +40,6 @@ end >> for i = 1, 1000 do >> fn(i) >> end >> +test:ok(true, "openresty-lua/resty-core gh-232 allowed its address to be inlined") > >Here is a mess with a message, it totally doesn't describe the check >being made. I propose the following comment: >| "allocation is unsunk at the trace exit (no platform failures)" Done. >> >> -test:ok("PASS") >> +os.exit(test:check() and 0 or 1) >> -- >> 2.17.1 >> > >-- >Best regards, >IM     -- Alexander Tikhonov