>Пятница, 17 апреля 2020, 9:25 +03:00 от Mergen Imeev <imeevma@tarantool.org>:
> 
>On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 10:04:16PM +0000, Nikita Pettik wrote:
>> On 17 Apr 00:15, Mergen Imeev wrote:
>> > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 09:02:05PM +0000, Nikita Pettik wrote:
>> > > On 16 Apr 23:24, Mergen Imeev wrote:
>> > > > Hi! Thank you for review. My answer below.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 07:18:51PM +0000, Nikita Pettik wrote:
>> > > > > On 16 Apr 22:09, Alexander Tikhonov wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Hi Mergen, thanks for the patch, I’ve checked it on 2.2 and it runs fine, patch LGTM.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Did you verify that modified test still reproduces initial problem?
>> > > > > I hope so, but ask just in case.
>> > > > According to history, the main goal of this part of the
>> > > > test is to show that sql_create_function() throws proper
>> > > > error in case a new function is created when transaction
>> > > > is active. Since the error still here, we may say that
>> > > > the test works.
>> > >
>> > > So the answer to my question is - no, you didn't test it.
>> > > Better safe than sorry - I'd better verify that updated
>> > > test still covers the initial problem. Thanks.
>> > >
>> > Doesn't my answer says that we checked it?
>>
>> No, it doesn't. 'reproduce' means that you are supposed to checkout
>> to branch, revert particular fix, run updated test without that fix
>> and verify that test fails without fix. Any other actions do not refer
>> to my original question.
>>
>> >However, I agree that it is never wrong to check it again.
>>
>> Please, check it for current fix and for any other test
>> upgrade in future.
>> To check this I changed the value in fiber.sleep() function
>on line 12 to 0.3 in the test before the patch. After that
>the test fails with this result:
>
>[001] Test failed! Result content mismatch:
>[001] --- sql/func-recreate.result Fri Apr 17 09:13:48 2020
>[001] +++ sql/func-recreate.reject Fri Apr 17 09:17:52 2020
>[001] @@ -21,13 +21,11 @@
>[001] _ = fiber.create(function () ch:put(box.execute('select WAITFOR(0.2)')) end)
>[001] ---
>[001] ...
>[001] -fiber.sleep(0.1)
>[001] +fiber.sleep(0.3)
>[001] ---
>[001] ...
>[001] box.internal.sql_create_function('WAITFOR', 'INT', function (n) require('fiber').sleep(n) return n end)
>[001] ---
>[001] -- error: 'Failed to create function ''WAITFOR'': unable to create function due to
>[001] - active statements'
>[001] ...
>[001] ch:get()
>[001] ---
>
>As you can see, the error dissappeared.
>
>This time we got this fail after we changed the test, but
>it is possible to get it even without changing. This
>happens when the computher which runs this test is too
>heavy loaded. But this won't happen after the patch.
>
>Is this good enough?
>  
I can only agree here, I’ve tried it too before the patch was created, while the issue was researched.
 
--
Alexander Tikhonov