[merge] change tests to use reduceLockdirTimeout rather than reimplementing it
jml at mumak.net
Mon Mar 17 23:52:47 GMT 2008
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 10:46 AM, Martin Pool <mbp at canonical.com> wrote:
> On 17/03/2008, Martin Pool <mbp at canonical.com> wrote:
> > jml and I are working on <https://launchpad.net/bugs/172392>, and
> > noticed that some tests hardcode something close to what
> > reduceLockdirTimeout does, even though it's always set up by the
> > TestCaseWithMemoryTransport base class.
> > This actually gives it a 0 second timeout rather than 1 but I think
> > this is equivalent - it still tries the lock once.
> Thanks for the reviews.
> Although cleaning up the code is nice, I think what it now
> consistently does is not quite right. The thing is that tests now
> cannot distinguish "lock immediately indicated contention" from "lock
> would hang until it timed out". We might want to assert that one or
> the other happens.
> So maybe we should add a distinct "timed out waiting for lock", and
> allow that to be raised even if we only waited 0 seconds.
That sounds good to me.
More information about the bazaar