> I'm not sure I understand. Because signals should not be sent in certain > situations, we don't need to check this? Isn't the conclusion exactly > the opposite? Because the test script needs to work with a potentially > buggy server, it must do as much checking as possible and be prepared to > report server failures gracefully. For a buggy server, it is possible. But I think a correct server should not. So my suggestion is that we should add at least one case to test this scenario: these signals should not be sent out. This could make sure that our server at least has no this kind of error. > I merged everything related to this into master, including the fix for > the StatusChanged "idle" problem. There are more patches pending in the > "pohly" branch, please let me know what you consider ready for merging. One question, in the patch 'syncevo-dbus-server: StatusChanged "idle" was not sent', + loop.run() + expected = ["session " + self.sessionpath + " done", + "session " + sessionpath + " idle", + "session " + sessionpath + " ready"] + expected.sort() + DBusUtil.quit_events.sort() + self.failUnlessEqual(DBusUtil.quit_events, expected) I find expected and quit_events are all sorted. Don't we guarantee the sequence? 'progress' testing needs check the sequence problem.
Cheers, Yongsheng > -----Original Message----- > From: Ohly, Patrick > Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 4:06 PM > To: Zhu, Yongsheng > Cc: SyncEvolution > Subject: RE: [SyncEvolution] D-Bus Testing + TestSessionAPIsReal + > StatusChanged "done" multiple times > > On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 03:11 +0000, Zhu, Yongsheng wrote: > > > And it is really only sent once. The problem was in the test-dbus.py > > > script. Here's the fix and a more detailed explanation: > > When sync is done, signals of statusChanged and progressChanged should > > be never sent. If has, I think it should be bugs of dbus server. > > I doubt why we need this kind of checking. > > I'm not sure I understand. Because signals should not be sent in certain > situations, we don't need to check this? Isn't the conclusion exactly > the opposite? Because the test script needs to work with a potentially > buggy server, it must do as much checking as possible and be prepared to > report server failures gracefully. > > > > Yongsheng, I pushed this and a fix for sending SYNC_DONE at the end of > > > Session::run() into "pohly". Please review. > > It's ok. > > I merged everything related to this into master, including the fix for > the StatusChanged "idle" problem. There are more patches pending in the > "pohly" branch, please let me know what you consider ready for merging. > > -- > Best Regards, Patrick Ohly > > The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although > I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way > represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak > on behalf of Intel on this matter. > _______________________________________________ SyncEvolution mailing list [email protected] http://lists.syncevolution.org/listinfo/syncevolution
