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.
This also seems like a fine solution, if we are to stick to the SOP, I will do this.
However, I’m not sure whether this patch fixes a bug, it is stated in the code
that there’s nothing to send in case of unprepare, perhaps it is a feature?
I will resend v3 if no one gives other proposals.
Thank you for participating in discussion!
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.
Thanks for the catch here too, I fixed it for the future.
WBR, Alexander Turenko.