Dmitrii, No-op means "hide any problem", so, we lose the guarantees. Could you please share some examples where "no-op" better than "strict try-catch with a check"?
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM Dmitrii Ryabov <somefire...@gmail.com> wrote: > Anton, I think wrapping every disconnecting node with try-catch will be > less readable than no-op handler. > > ср, 5 дек. 2018 г., 9:26 Dmitriy Pavlov dpav...@apache.org: > > > Folks let me remind you that Dmitry changed default of ALL tests from > noop > > to a meaningful handler. So we should start every message here from > saying > > thank you to Dmitry. > > > > Please review remaining tests and remove noop where possible. > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г., 23:48 Andrey Mashenkov <andrey.mashen...@gmail.com>: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Really, why noop? > > > > > > If you expect failure handler should be triggered, you can override > > default > > > one and rise some flag, which can be checked in test. > > > This will make test clearer. > > > > > > With noop, you'll get previous unwanted behavior, that you are trying > to > > > improve, isnt'it? > > > > > > 4 дек. 2018 г. 23:25 пользователь "Anton Vinogradov" <a...@apache.org> > > > написал: > > > > > > And you have to check the reason of failure inside the try-catch block, > > of > > > course. > > > In case found not equals to expected then test should rethrow the > > > exception. > > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 23:21, Anton Vinogradov <a...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > > > > Dmitrii, > > > > > > > > The solution is not clear to me. > > > > In case you expect the failure then a correct case is to wrap it with > > > > try-catch block instead of no-op failure handler usage. > > > > > > > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 21:41, Dmitrii Ryabov <somefire...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > >> Anton, > > > >> > > > >> Tests in these classes check fail cases when we expect critical > > > >> failure like node stop or exception thrown. Such tests trigger > failure > > > >> handler and it fails test when everything goes as it should go. > That's > > > >> why we need no-op handler here. > > > >> вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:06, Dmitriy Pavlov <dpav...@apache.org>: > > > >> > > > > >> > Hi Igniters, > > > >> > > > > >> > BTW, if you find in any of your tests it does't need an old value > of > > > >> > handler (=NoOp), feel free to remove it. > > > >> > > > > >> > Sincerely, > > > >> > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > >> > > > > >> > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 20:02, Anton Vinogradov <a...@apache.org>: > > > >> > > > > >> > > Dmitrii, > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Could you please explain the reason of explicit set of 100+ > > > >> > > NoOpFailureHandlers? > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > вт, 4 дек. 2018 г. в 19:12, Dmitrii Ryabov < > somefire...@gmail.com > > >: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Hello, Igniters! > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Today the test framework's default no-op failure handler was > > > >> changed to > > > >> > > the > > > >> > > > handler, which stops the node and fails the test. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Over 100 tests kept no-op failure handler by overrided > > > >> > > > `getFailureHandler()` method. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > If you'll found a problem or something unexpected - write here > > or > > > >> in the > > > >> > > > ticket [1]. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8227 > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
