From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2018 02:24:13 +0300 From: Alexander Turenko Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] test: use wait_cond to check follow status Message-ID: <20181019232413.3hmynv532fe2srbi@tkn_work_nb> References: <20181019161721.49560-1-sergw@tarantool.org> <20181019161721.49560-5-sergw@tarantool.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181019161721.49560-5-sergw@tarantool.org> To: Sergei Voronezhskii Cc: tarantool-patches@freelists.org, Vladimir Davydov List-ID: 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. > end > end > return true > -- > 2.18.0 >