From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
Received: from smtp48.i.mail.ru (smtp48.i.mail.ru [94.100.177.108])
 (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 412F7452566
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Tue,  5 Nov 2019 12:38:24 +0300 (MSK)
References: <cover.1572558071.git.v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
 <9a689ea853eacdac07dba2aa426cf096cba86a49.1572558071.git.v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
 <20191104172233.GB29784@atlas>
From: Vladislav Shpilevoy <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
Message-ID: <35c3c2c3-ad09-8b89-60b2-45d2afaf0bf0@tarantool.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 12:44:13 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20191104172233.GB29784@atlas>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH 2/3] user: don't throw C++ exception
 from user_find_by_name
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: Konstantin Osipov <kostja.osipov@gmail.com>, tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org



On 04/11/2019 20:22, Konstantin Osipov wrote:
> * Vladislav Shpilevoy <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org> [19/11/01 00:39]:
>> +-- Invalid user.
>> +session.su('does not exist')
>> +---
>> +- error: User 'does not exist' is not found
>> +...
>> +-- The point of this test is to try a name > max
>> +-- allowed name.
>> +session.su(string.rep('a', 66000))
>> +---
>> +- error: name length 66000 is greater than BOX_NAME_MAX
>> +...
> 
> That's pretty strange, I think we had such tests before.
> 
> Did you actually verify that the tests do not pass before your
> fix? Or they do pass because there is a catch clause somewhere
> up the stack anyway?

That test fails before my patch. The error was 'C++ exception'.
Now it is a ClientError object.

> 
> Please clarify in the comment.
> 
> Otherwise LGTM.
> 
>