From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
Received: from smtp33.i.mail.ru (smtp33.i.mail.ru [94.100.177.93])
 (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 407A9469719
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Thu,  5 Mar 2020 23:53:09 +0300 (MSK)
References: <cover.1583366981.git.v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
 <4bfd55d1ec53a21acd83114ea6bef36c6345c038.1583366981.git.v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
 <20200305113518.GD9655@tarantool.org>
From: Vladislav Shpilevoy <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
Message-ID: <76fb8ee1-d34c-0060-6ef0-93b182feb688@tarantool.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2020 21:53:07 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200305113518.GD9655@tarantool.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH 1/2] box: fail in box_check_config()
	on bad sql cache size
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: Nikita Pettik <korablev@tarantool.org>
Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org

Hi! Thanks for the review!

On 05/03/2020 12:35, Nikita Pettik wrote:
> On 05 Mar 01:14, Vladislav Shpilevoy wrote:
>> It was calling box_check_sql_cache_size() assuming that it
>> throws. But it returns 0/-1.
>> ---
>>  src/box/box.cc | 3 ++-
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/box/box.cc b/src/box/box.cc
>> index 09dd67ab4..0212f34ad 100644
>> --- a/src/box/box.cc
>> +++ b/src/box/box.cc
>> @@ -669,7 +669,8 @@ box_check_config()
>>  	box_check_memtx_memory(cfg_geti64("memtx_memory"));
>>  	box_check_memtx_min_tuple_size(cfg_geti64("memtx_min_tuple_size"));
>>  	box_check_vinyl_options();
>> -	box_check_sql_cache_size(cfg_geti("sql_cache_size"));
>> +	if (box_check_sql_cache_size(cfg_geti("sql_cache_size")) != 0)
>> +		diag_raise();
>>  }
> 
> Is it possible to test this scenario: box.sql_cache_size is set to
> incorrect value but box.internal:cfg_check() doesn't verify it?
> I mean supply this patch with test case. If it turns out to be
> too complicated, then nevermind. LGTM otherwise.

It is not testable. Sql_cache_size is always set from
box_set_prepared_stmt_cache_size(), on first and all
next configurations, and is always checked for returned
value.