Okay, that raises a few more questions for me.
The test calls for issuing "['error','unknown_command']" in this
situation.
Is this the only situation where "Known but inappropriate" command
should be a fatal? Are there other situations where you could GET a
"known but inappropriate" command?
"unknown_command" is not nominally a fatal right? If I issue
"['foo']" to a view server, it just responds with an error and
continues.
If so, and "unknown_command" is fatal only in this one case, is it
the correct error to be issuing?
Also, is there any situation where you could get a "list_row" command
OUTSIDE of a list function and it wouldn't be fatal?
On Jun 17, 2010, at 10:02 AM, J Chris Anderson wrote:
On Jun 17, 2010, at 7:37 AM, Stephen Prater wrote:
Actually, just a particular view server test.
The one that's rpsec definition is "query server that exits only
goes to 2 list should exit if erlang sends too many rows."
I'm not a 100% sure exactly what this test is ... testing - perhaps
because the rspec "english" isn't really clear.
I'm guessing that it's testing that that the view server bails if
it get's a "list_row" command that it isn't expecting?
Yes. The idea is that if the view server thinks it's done with a
particular _list, but Erlang disagrees, the view server should exit
immediately.
Can someone clarify the expected behavior here?
Thanks,
--
Stephen Prater
