From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp57.i.mail.ru (smtp57.i.mail.ru [217.69.128.37]) (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 5E5D8469719 for ; Sun, 15 Mar 2020 18:34:20 +0300 (MSK) References: <20200303161649.62470-1-k.sosnin@tarantool.org> <20200305054101.6btvhiglj6olbijv@tarantool.org> <20200305084135.GC9655@tarantool.org> <20200306172701.sziodfignjz2ix6a@tkn_work_nb> From: Vladislav Shpilevoy Message-ID: <216961ae-20bf-aa6d-9668-51bd84ac503a@tarantool.org> Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2020 16:34:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200306172701.sziodfignjz2ix6a@tkn_work_nb> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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: Alexander Turenko , Nikita Pettik Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org 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.