Skip to content

Conversation

nshy
Copy link
Contributor

@nshy nshy commented Jul 16, 2024

Currently we stop default server in worker run loop only before the next test start. So the previous test does not account whether the Tarantool executing the test exits successfully or not. Thus we do not fail on memory leaks for example.

Let's stop the server and account its exit status in test.

Closes #416

Currently we stop default server in worker run loop only before the
next test start. So the previous test does not account whether the
Tarantool executing the test exits successfully or not. Thus we
do not fail on memory leaks for example.

Let's stop the server and account its exit status in test.

Closes tarantool#416
@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

coverage: 62.721% (+0.1%) from 62.623%
when pulling 7aa25f0 on nshy:fail-on-tarantool-server-failure
into 240cdea on tarantool:master.

@nshy nshy requested a review from ylobankov July 16, 2024 11:22
@ylobankov ylobankov requested a review from Totktonada August 1, 2024 10:18
self.is_equal_result = is_ok
self.skip = is_skip

server.stop(silent=True)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It seems, this patch is not enough to fail on the scenario from #416, because SIGABRT is considered as OK (it was added as part of the #398 fix).

@Totktonada Totktonada assigned nshy and unassigned ylobankov Aug 2, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Memory leak is not checked for core = tarantool tests

4 participants