Re: [PATCH 1/8] git-p4: test script

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



gitster@xxxxxxxxx wrote on Sun, 06 Feb 2011 18:22 -0800:
> Pete Wyckoff <pw@xxxxxxxx> writes:
[..]
> Use of two global variables with short names makes me feel "yeek!".
> 
> 	(p4 -h && p4d -h) >/dev/null 2>/dev/null ||
> 	{
> 		...
>                 test_done
> 	}

Much nicer.  Thanks.

> > +	p4d -q -d -r "$db" -p $P4DPORT &&
> > +	# wait for it to finish its initialization
> > +	sleep 1 &&
> 
> Is there a guarantee that "1" is sufficiently long for everybody?
> 
> Otherwise this will be a flaky test that sometimes passes and sometimes
> doesn't, which we try to avoid.
> 
> If the answer is "empirically 1 second is sufficient for 99.9% of people",
> then I would have to guess that it is 0.8 second too long for majority of
> people, in which case I would like to see us try harder to make it both
> reliable and efficient.
> 
> Isn't there a "noop" command a client can issue against a working server
> that fails when the server is not ready (or waits until the server becomes
> ready)?

There is a noop ("p4 info") that I can use to test.  But turns
out I was wrong in even needing to sleep or wait for the "info"
test to complete.  In trying to get it to race, I found that p4d
is well-behaved.  Strace confirms that it does bind/listen before
daemonizing.  So that sleep can be removed.

I'll wait a while in case other comments come in, then send the
updated series to you.

		-- Pete
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]