From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gorcunov@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-lf1-f48.google.com (mail-lf1-f48.google.com
 [209.85.167.48])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7A5D45C304
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Sun, 20 Dec 2020 21:28:43 +0300 (MSK)
Received: by mail-lf1-f48.google.com with SMTP id h22so8888204lfu.2
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Sun, 20 Dec 2020 10:28:43 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2020 21:28:41 +0300
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20201220182841.GF3139@grain>
References: <20201214113935.1040421-1-gorcunov@gmail.com>
 <20201214113935.1040421-3-gorcunov@gmail.com>
 <bbe39d5b-85f8-0ccc-c153-0adfb3d4f580@tarantool.org>
 <20201218072529.GF14556@grain>
 <47af00c0-5f40-533c-f51c-84d16c609c11@tarantool.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <47af00c0-5f40-533c-f51c-84d16c609c11@tarantool.org>
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v4 2/3] cfg: support symbolic
 evaluation of replication_synchro_quorum
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: Mons Anderson <v.perepelitsa@corp.mail.ru>, tml <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>

On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 06:01:25PM +0100, Vladislav Shpilevoy wrote:
...
> 
> I saw the comment and I understood it. But it does not mean the function
> can now return random values. It does not matter if you return 0 or 1 or
> whatever else. It still can't be used for anything useful except check < 0.
> 
> That makes the function result confusing and even useless.
> 
> Previously quorum value was returned *and used as quorum value*. Now it
> is used only for < 0 check. Hence, why do you need to return anything
> except -1 and 0?
> 
> For example, look at box_check_replication_synchro_timeout(). It returns
> *timeout value*, which is used to set replication_synchro_timeout.
> 
> box_set_replication_synchro_quorum() before your patch did the same
> with box_check_replication_synchro_quorum(). Now it uses check() result
> only to compare it with < 0, which is *confusing* - why would it need
> to return anything but -1 and 0 then?
> 
> Here is what I want to see:

Aha, I see what you mean. I think we should split then.

 - change existing code to return 0|-1
 - then introduce new code

this allows us to see the changes more clearly