Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit] test: adapt tests checking loading bytecode files

[Sergey Kaplun via Tarantool-patches <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>]

Hi!

Thanks for the fixes!

On 11.10.21, Максим Корякшин wrote:
> 

<snipped>

> >>
> >> --- FIXME: Loading bytecode with an extra header (BOM or "#")
> >> +-- Loading bytecode with an extra header (BOM or "#")
> >> -- is disabled for security reasons since LuaJIT-2.0.0-beta10.
> >> -- For more information see comment for `lj_lex_setup()`
> >> -- in <src/lj_lex.c>.
> >> -- Also see commit 53a285c0c3544ff5dea7c67b741c3c2d06d22b47
> >> -- (Disable loading bytecode with an extra header (BOM or #!).).
> >> -- See also  https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/issues/5691 .
> >> --- The test is disabled for LuaJIT.
> >> -prepfile("#comment with a binary file\n"..string.dump(loadstring("print(1)")))
> >> --- RUN("lua %s > %s", prog, out)
> >> --- checkout("1\n")
> >> -
> >> -prepfile("#comment with a binary file\r\n"..string.dump(loadstring("print(1)")))
> >> --- FIXME: Behavior is different for LuaJIT. See the comment above.
> >> --- The test is disabled for LuaJIT.
> >> --- RUN("lua %s > %s", prog, out)
> >> --- checkout("1\n")
> >> +-- The test is adapted to LuaJIT behavior.
> >> +prepfile(string.dump(loadstring("print(1)")))
> >> +RUN("lua %s > %s", prog, out)
> >> +checkout("1\n")
> >
> >May be it is better to test `NoRun()` for 1 binary file with a comment at the
> >first string and `Run()` for another binary file without the comment.

What are your thoughts about this idea?

> >
> >>
> >> -- close Lua with an open file
> >> prepfile(string.format([[io.output(%q); io.write('alo')]], out))
> >> --
> >> 2.33.0
> >>
> >
> >--
> >Best regards,
> >Sergey Kaplun
>  

-- 
Best regards,
Sergey Kaplun