From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <tsafin@tarantool.org>
Received: from smtp1.mail.ru (smtp1.mail.ru [94.100.179.111])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87E9D469719
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Tue, 13 Oct 2020 03:35:37 +0300 (MSK)
From: "Timur Safin" <tsafin@tarantool.org>
References: <cover.1602463103.git.tsafin@tarantool.org>
 <0b974732d5f63fcf820ae432d88ce349addea5ec.1602463103.git.tsafin@tarantool.org>
 <20201013001436.3h5rkyf2t3giasx7@tkn_work_nb>
In-Reply-To: <20201013001436.3h5rkyf2t3giasx7@tkn_work_nb>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 03:35:31 +0300
Message-ID: <1cf301d6a0f8$c1b66ce0$452346a0$@tarantool.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: ru
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH 2.X v3 1/3] module api: export
	box_tuple_validate
List-Id: Tarantool development patches <tarantool-patches.dev.tarantool.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/options/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.tarantool.org/pipermail/tarantool-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/listinfo/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=subscribe>
To: 'Alexander Turenko' <alexander.turenko@tarantool.org>
Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org, v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org

: From: Alexander Turenko <alexander.turenko@tarantool.org>
: Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.X v3 1/3] module api: export box_tuple_validate
: 
: > +int
: > +box_tuple_validate(box_tuple_t *tuple, box_tuple_format_t *format)
: > +{
: > +	return tuple_validate_raw(format, tuple_data(tuple));
: > +}
: > +
: 
: I would invoke tuple_validate() here.

Yup, indeed. Good point.

: 
: > +static int
: > +test_tuple_validate(lua_State *L)
: > +{
: > +	int valid = 0;
: > +	box_tuple_t *tuple = luaT_istuple(L, -1);
: > +
: > +	if (tuple != NULL) {
: > +		box_tuple_format_t *format = box_tuple_format_default();
: > +                valid = box_tuple_validate(tuple, format) == 0;
: > +        }
: 
: Tab / spaces mix.

Indeed. I have found it later during further ibuf tests additions. 
Will fix.

: 
: All tuples are valid against the runtime (default) format. For the sake
: of minimal testing I would create a format with at least one specified
: field and check a tuple that is valid and one that is invalid. You can
: use box_tuple_format_new() to create a format, see example in
: test_key_def_api().

Will add some format there.

: 
: > +local function test_tuples(test, module)
: > +    test:plan(8)
: > +
: > +    local nottuple1 = {}
: > +    local nottuple2 = {1, 2}
: > +    local nottuple3 = {1, nil, 2}
: > +    local nottuple4 = {1, box.NULL, 2, 3}
: 
: What is the purpose? You test your test_tuple_validate() wrapper here.

:) at least it distinguish Tarantool tuple objects from generic Lua tables.

: 
: > @@ -199,6 +221,7 @@ local test = require('tap').test("module_api",
: function(test)
: >      test:test("pushcdata", test_pushcdata, module)
: >      test:test("iscallable", test_iscallable, module)
: >      test:test("iscdata", test_iscdata, module)
: > +    test:test("validate", test_tuples, module)
: 
: Nit: Feels a bit inconsistent: either validate + test_validate or
: tuples + test_tuples or any other <foo> + test_<foo>. I would borrow the
: name from the function we test: tuple_validate + test_tuple_validate.

Will streamline name. Thanks

Timur