From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <alexander.turenko@tarantool.org>
Received: from smtp29.i.mail.ru (smtp29.i.mail.ru [94.100.177.89])
 (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 2D47E469710
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Mon,  1 Jun 2020 20:14:15 +0300 (MSK)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2020 20:13:56 +0300
From: Alexander Turenko <alexander.turenko@tarantool.org>
Message-ID: <20200601171356.qol3fnd45ehj2qul@tkn_work_nb>
References: <cover.1590764167.git.sergeyb@tarantool.org>
 <2fe2a41b8028623b6e5d72c59be716b81dce1e37.1590764167.git.sergeyb@tarantool.org>
 <20200601133715.px7reef7xmhrdbfx@tkn_work_nb>
 <20200601163751.GT21558@tarantool.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200601163751.GT21558@tarantool.org>
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v6 08/25] Fix luacheck warnings in
 test/app-tap
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: Igor Munkin <imun@tarantool.org>
Cc: o.piskunov@tarantool.org, tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org, v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org

> > > -local function execute_and_verify(test, client, input, exp_output, name)
> > > -    test:test(name, function(test)
> > > +local function execute_and_verify(testcase, client, input, exp_output, name)
> > > +    testcase:test(name, function(test)
> > 
> > Please, don't forbid redefinitions. I often use it for 'standard' names
> > like 'opts', 'ok', 'err', 'test'. It allows to write code blocks in the
> > same style:
> > 
> >  | local ok, err = <...>
> >  | <...>
> >  | local ok, err = <...>
> > 
> 
> I have no objections regarding this proposal, only two nits:
> * Those suppressions should be enabled source-wide *only and only when*
>   all unintentional occurences or the ones masking bugs (if we found
>   such) are fixed. Otherwise I see no sence in enabling luacheck.

Aren't real bugfixes (that actually changes present behaviour) separated
from style changes?

Don't get what you meant with 'unintentional occurences': if it is not a
bug and not a code style violation, than it it does not look as
something that should be fixed. But if there is an example, where
luacheck reveals a place that is worth to change for, say, readability,
then okay.

I bet a beer that this certain warning does not give us any real bug.

The main advantage of luacheck is preventing some kinds of typos: say, a
typo in a function name in some failure branch, which is not covered by
tests. The tool is definitely useful without the redefinition warning.

WBR, Alexander Turenko.