On 13/06/2014 12:15, Michael McMahon wrote:
To be honest, the test doesn't/(can't easily) check if a flow has been
created. So, in practice
a success return code doesn't prove that everything is working.
Exercising the code at least
is a basic smoke test. If we add a new exception then maybe w
On 13/06/14 12:10, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 13/06/2014 11:49, Michael McMahon wrote:
Okay. I can see the reasoning why supportedOptions should refer to
the platform rather than the process/instance
running. We could consider adding a sub-class of IOException for
permission related failures, but
On 13/06/2014 11:49, Michael McMahon wrote:
Okay. I can see the reasoning why supportedOptions should refer to the
platform rather than the process/instance
running. We could consider adding a sub-class of IOException for
permission related failures, but I'm not proposing
to do that here. For
On 13/06/14 10:08, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 12/06/14 21:04, Michael McMahon wrote:
On 12/06/14 20:35, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 12/06/2014 20:15, Michael McMahon wrote:
It would be possible to change the error back, but what about
supportedOptions() - what should
that return? It doesn't seem ri
On 12/06/14 21:04, Michael McMahon wrote:
On 12/06/14 20:35, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 12/06/2014 20:15, Michael McMahon wrote:
It would be possible to change the error back, but what about
supportedOptions() - what should
that return? It doesn't seem right that it would include an option
that
On 12/06/14 20:35, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 12/06/2014 20:15, Michael McMahon wrote:
It would be possible to change the error back, but what about
supportedOptions() - what should
that return? It doesn't seem right that it would include an option
that cannot be used and how do
we test it, if w
On 12/06/2014 20:15, Michael McMahon wrote:
It would be possible to change the error back, but what about
supportedOptions() - what should
that return? It doesn't seem right that it would include an option
that cannot be used and how do
we test it, if we can't tell whether the option is usabl
On 12/06/14 18:47, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 12/06/2014 18:04, Michael McMahon wrote:
Could I get this change reviewed please?
We need to check if the current process has permission to use the
SO_FLOW_SLA
socket option as well as test if the feature is installed.
The problem would cause the new
On 12/06/2014 18:04, Michael McMahon wrote:
Could I get this change reviewed please?
We need to check if the current process has permission to use the
SO_FLOW_SLA
socket option as well as test if the feature is installed.
The problem would cause the new test to fail on Solaris machines with
Could I get this change reviewed please?
We need to check if the current process has permission to use the
SO_FLOW_SLA
socket option as well as test if the feature is installed.
The problem would cause the new test to fail on Solaris machines with S11.2
unless running with the required privile
10 matches
Mail list logo
