From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <korablev@tarantool.org>
Received: from smtp63.i.mail.ru (smtp63.i.mail.ru [217.69.128.43])
 (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 655DE469719
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Fri,  6 Mar 2020 00:00:30 +0300 (MSK)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2020 21:00:29 +0000
From: Nikita Pettik <korablev@tarantool.org>
Message-ID: <20200305210029.GA12214@tarantool.org>
References: <cover.1583366981.git.v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
 <4bfd55d1ec53a21acd83114ea6bef36c6345c038.1583366981.git.v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
 <20200305113518.GD9655@tarantool.org>
 <76fb8ee1-d34c-0060-6ef0-93b182feb688@tarantool.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <76fb8ee1-d34c-0060-6ef0-93b182feb688@tarantool.org>
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH 1/2] box: fail in box_check_config()
	on bad sql cache size
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: Vladislav Shpilevoy <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org

On 05 Mar 21:53, Vladislav Shpilevoy wrote:
> Hi! Thanks for the review!
> 
> On 05/03/2020 12:35, Nikita Pettik wrote:
> > On 05 Mar 01:14, Vladislav Shpilevoy wrote:
> >> It was calling box_check_sql_cache_size() assuming that it
> >> throws. But it returns 0/-1.
> >> ---
> >>  src/box/box.cc | 3 ++-
> >>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/src/box/box.cc b/src/box/box.cc
> >> index 09dd67ab4..0212f34ad 100644
> >> --- a/src/box/box.cc
> >> +++ b/src/box/box.cc
> >> @@ -669,7 +669,8 @@ box_check_config()
> >>  	box_check_memtx_memory(cfg_geti64("memtx_memory"));
> >>  	box_check_memtx_min_tuple_size(cfg_geti64("memtx_min_tuple_size"));
> >>  	box_check_vinyl_options();
> >> -	box_check_sql_cache_size(cfg_geti("sql_cache_size"));
> >> +	if (box_check_sql_cache_size(cfg_geti("sql_cache_size")) != 0)
> >> +		diag_raise();
> >>  }
> > 
> > Is it possible to test this scenario: box.sql_cache_size is set to
> > incorrect value but box.internal:cfg_check() doesn't verify it?
> > I mean supply this patch with test case. If it turns out to be
> > too complicated, then nevermind. LGTM otherwise.
> 
> It is not testable. Sql_cache_size is always set from
> box_set_prepared_stmt_cache_size(), on first and all
> next configurations, and is always checked for returned
> value.

Ok, then mb it would be better to check rc in assertion
instead of diag_raise().. (since it can't fail here anyway)?