[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-2308?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17463820#comment-17463820
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on PROTON-2308:
----------------------------------------
astitcher commented on pull request #346:
URL: https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/346#issuecomment-999598356
> > Although @gemmellr is correct in his analysis of what is going on in a
real AMQP messaging interaction, this is probably not all that important as the
C++ binding (at least currently) has no logic at either sender or receiver to
do anything special for dynamic nodes - it just passes the info on to the
application which is expected to validate and act on that information.
> > So from the point of view of this test it is only important to check
that the properties get correctly carried in both directions.
>
> I very much disagree. The test should verify functionality actually works
the way it needs to be used, and thus help ensure someone doesn't go breaking
it later. A test of 'dynamic node [properties]' usage that doesnt actually use
the handling/options for dynamic nodes in the required way is simply not a good
test. It means it has never been verified to fully work in the situation it
needs to, and its never being fully verified it isnt broken later. Assuming
things work a certain way is how so many bugs come up when it later turns out
it doesnt.
I'm not sure we're actually disagreeing very much here! I agreee it makes
the most sense to test the API in the way that it would be actually used - my
major point is simply that the binding code has no magic in it to ensure
correct AMQP semantics and so this cannot be tested here. A minor point we do
disagree on is that I think testing that the values get transferred correctly
is the most important point and I think @gemmellr is saying that is not much
use unless it actually tests what might be used - I don't think this
disagreement matters much! Doing it the @gemmellr way satisfies me too!
>
> If there is a test of the 'no node properties' dynamic usage elsewhere
then that would at least mean the 2 bits were somewhat tested in isolation even
if the node-props bit was still not actually in full (which would still be poor
but not quite as much). I might expect that other testing to be in this same
test class, but it doesnt appear so. Is that bit actually tested right now
anywhere?
>
Yes it would be really good to have that test here too! But currently we
have no C++ test for this at all.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
> [cpp] Add support for setting Dynamic Node Properties
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: PROTON-2308
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-2308
> Project: Qpid Proton
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: cpp-binding
> Affects Versions: proton-c-0.33.0
> Reporter: James Henry
> Assignee: Rakhi Kumari
> Priority: Major
> Labels: api-addition
>
> Requesting support for setting the dynamic node properties be added to the
> source and target options.
> This would allow the setting of termini node properties for senders and
> receivers.
> Similar to the following request made for Python here:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-816
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.1#820001)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
