On 2024-10-31 Th 6:18 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 31/10/2024 14:27, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
On 28 Oct 2024, at 11:56, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> wrote:
On 09/04/2024 20:10, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
=item $session->quit
Close the session and clean up resources. Each test run must be
closed with
C<quit>. Returns TRUE when the session was cleanly terminated,
otherwise
FALSE. A testfailure will be issued in case the session failed to
finish.
What does "session failed to finish" mean? Does it mean the same as
"not cleanly terminated", i.e. a test failure is issued whenever
this returns FALSE?
It was very literally referring to the finish() method. I've
reworded the
comment to indicated that it throws a failure in case the process
returns a
non-zero exit status to finish().
I see.
@@ -148,7 +148,9 @@ sub _wait_connect
=item $session->quit
Close the session and clean up resources. Each test run must be
closed with
-C<quit>.
+C<quit>. Returns TRUE when the session was cleanly terminated,
otherwise
+FALSE. A test failure will be issued in case the session exited
with a non-
+zero exit status (the finish() method returns TRUE for 0 exit status).
I still find that confusing. What finish() method? Yes, there's a
finish() method in IPC::Run, but that's BackgroundPsql's internal
affair, not exposed to the callers in any other way. And why do I care
what that finish() returns for 0 exit status? That's not visible to
the quit method's caller.
Perhaps sommething like this:
"Close the psql session and clean up resources. Each psql session must
be closed with C<quit> before the end of the test.
Returns TRUE if psql exited successfully (i.e. with zero exit code),
otherwise returns FALSE and reports a test failure. "
Would that be accurate?
I would be OK with Heikki's version.
The patches have bitrotted slightly.
Also this is wrong, I think:
isnt($self->{timeout}->is_expired, 'psql query_until timed out');
I think it should be
ok(! $self->{timeout}->is_expired, 'psql query_until did not time
out');
isnt() normally takes 3 arguments, and the message you have seems
backwards.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
