From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp17.mail.ru (smtp17.mail.ru [94.100.176.154]) (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 50A0D469719 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 11:04:36 +0300 (MSK) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 11:04:32 +0300 From: Kirill Yukhin Message-ID: <20200317080432.alpq4l4rvx4mlzke@tarantool.org> References: <20200303161649.62470-1-k.sosnin@tarantool.org> <20200305054101.6btvhiglj6olbijv@tarantool.org> <20200305084135.GC9655@tarantool.org> <20200306172701.sziodfignjz2ix6a@tkn_work_nb> <216961ae-20bf-aa6d-9668-51bd84ac503a@tarantool.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <216961ae-20bf-aa6d-9668-51bd84ac503a@tarantool.org> Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v2] iproto: add an empty body to the unprepare response List-Id: Tarantool development patches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Vladislav Shpilevoy Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org Hello, On 15 мар 16:34, Vladislav Shpilevoy wrote: > > > On 06/03/2020 18:27, Alexander Turenko wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 08:41:35AM +0000, Nikita Pettik wrote: > >> On 05 Mar 08:41, Kirill Yukhin wrote: > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> On 03 мар 19:16, Chris Sosnin wrote: > >>>> Absence of the body in the unprepare response forces users to perform > >>>> additional checks to avoid errors. Adding an empty body fixes this problem. > >>>> > >>>> Closes #4769 > >>>> --- > >>>> branch: https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/tree/ksosnin/gh-4769-unprepare-response-body > >>>> issue: https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/issues/4769 > >>>> > >>>> As Nikita suggested, I created box/iproto.test.lua, and basically > >>>> inserted wrappers for requests testing from box-py for future usage. > >>> > >>> Could you please rename the test to be not so generic? > >>> Like box/gh-4769-iproto-unprep-body or whatever. > >> > >> Kirill, this test is going to assemble all iproto-related tests > >> which don't rely on net.box module. Setting up all preparations > >> required for raw iproto communication results in duplicating ~30-40 > >> lines of code in each test file. > > > > Technically there are two ways to extract helpers from a 'core = > > tarantool' test: > > > > * Add it to, say, test/box/box.lua and to _G.protected_globals. > > * Add it to a separate Lua file in test/box/lua and to 'lua_libs' field > > in test/box/suite.ini. After this you can use `require` for this > > module in a test. > > > > So technically you're not blocked here. Both ways are available and > > don't lead to much code duplication, but the process (SOP) requires to > > add a test for a bug to a separate file. (Personally I still don't sure > > it is good, but anyway.) > > > > NB: 'receive', not 'recieve'. Very often typo. > > > > WBR, Alexander Turenko. > > The whole purpose of the 'one issue - one file' was to simplify > reproducibility in a console. When you need to extract some helpers > into a second file, the idea does not work anymore, but just complicates > life, when you need to invent how to make resuable and abstract > something, which is not needed to be reusable and abstract really. Also, the purpose was to separate cases so they're not interfere. I guess, we might have something like 'gcc -E' to preprocess the cases. -- Regards, Kirill Yukhin