Hi Eugene, that looks right to me. (did that fix it for you?)
In addition to the anti-pattern I mentioned earlier, another one to
look for is slow running tests -- often times a test will run slowly
that could be coded in a different way to run much more quickly.
Notice here that we don't even wait the second if the test is already
passing. Although we might run for a much longer time if needed. (this
all adds up when you have hundreds/thousands of tests).
btw, you might put that comment directly into your assert. Also take a
look at Assert.fail("foo") instead of assertTrue(false). (it's a nit
though).
Patrick
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Eugene Koontz <ekoo...@hiro-tan.org> wrote:
> On 6/21/11 12:45 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
>>
>> Such uses of sleep are just asking for trouble. Take a look at the use
>> of sleep in testSessionMove in the same class for a better way to do
>> this. I had gone through all the tests a while back, replacing all the
>> "sleep(x)" with something like this testSessionMove pattern (retry
>> with a max limit that's very long). During reviews we should look for
>> anti-patterns like this and address them before commit.
>>
>> Patrick
>
> Thanks a lot for bringing this up, Camille. I had exactly this problem
> (QuorumTest.testFollowersStartAfterLeader failing) yesterday and today .
> Would the attached patch be the fix in the spirit of the pattern you're
> describing, Patrick?
>
> -Eugene
>
>
>
