From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp42.i.mail.ru (smtp42.i.mail.ru [94.100.177.102]) (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 90B68469719 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 09:37:46 +0300 (MSK) References: <20201111200408.49148-1-olegrok@tarantool.org> <20201112094406.GA76747@pony.bronevichok.ru> <4523cd54-548c-11ee-90fc-5cf126e7ca2a@tarantool.org> From: Sergey Bronnikov Message-ID: <35fd8ac8-ed6d-c4e8-1d7a-e7b5b6685147@tarantool.org> Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 09:37:45 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4523cd54-548c-11ee-90fc-5cf126e7ca2a@tarantool.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH] lua: introduce function for uuid comparison List-Id: Tarantool development patches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Oleg Babin Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org, v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org Hi, Oleg On 12.11.2020 12:55, Oleg Babin wrote: > Hi, Sergey! > > The main reason is "uuid tests were implemented with diff-based approach". Got it. Missed it that you haven't add new test and just enhanced the old one. > > However I can easily convert my tests to TAP but I don't want touch > existing tests of course. > > Do you think we should start moving towards TAP-based approach for > "uuid" module testing? I think no. > On 12/11/2020 12:44, Sergey Bronnikov wrote: >> Hi, Oleg >> >> thanks for the patch! >> Looks like you expect a review from Leonid and Vlad, but I have a >> question regarding tests in the patch. >> >> On 23:04 Wed 11 Nov , olegrok@tarantool.org wrote: >>> --- a/test/app/uuid.result >>> +++ b/test/app/uuid.result >> For Tarantool core we have two kind of tests: with diff-based approach >> and TAP based tests. Your tests can be easily implemented with a TAP >> approach, when test data and oracle are in the code. But you preferred a >> diff-based approach here. Why?