From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <alexander.turenko@tarantool.org>
Received: from smtp43.i.mail.ru (smtp43.i.mail.ru [94.100.177.103])
 (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 93AAB445320
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Fri, 17 Jul 2020 12:10:30 +0300 (MSK)
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 12:09:42 +0300
From: Alexander Turenko <alexander.turenko@tarantool.org>
Message-ID: <20200717090942.s5niw2k5ezrzlety@tkn_work_nb>
References: <cover.1592235478.git.skaplun@tarantool.org>
 <9e6b2ec973a0dd0f2bb6da4915bf1f8f7ff58081.1592235478.git.skaplun@tarantool.org>
 <20200714154646.GL5559@tarantool.org> <20200715093215.GA947@root>
 <20200716205331.GP5559@tarantool.org> <20200717083521.GA3979@root>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200717083521.GA3979@root>
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH 2/2] msgpack: fix wrong mp_ext type
 in error message
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: Sergey Kaplun <skaplun@tarantool.org>
Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org

> > Well, I still don't get the reason for it. You can simply check your
> > patch via a tiny Lua chunk for 1.10, otherwise the patch and the test
> > are not necessary for the reasons I mentioned above.
> 
> I rewrote test to simple lua chunk (see it below).

+1 here, it is much simpler.

The Lua-written test does not fail on 2.4, but it is not a problem: in
fact 2.4 is not affected by the problem (from a user point of view).

Re how to push: I would anyway push it from master downward, because the
fixed code may become alive (I mean, not dead) in a future and we'll
have the correct behaviour and the test. It is better than left it
incorrect just because it is dead in fact.