Willy,

Am 11.06.19 um 21:58 schrieb Willy Tarreau:
>> So clearly there is no *seamless* reload happening here which is the
>> very thing the test is testing. The question is: Is the issue with the
>> 'abns' socket or is the issue with the 'fd@${testme}' socket? Can
>> fd-sockets be seamlessly passed?
> 
> That's an excellent question. I tend to think we cannot pass them by
> definition since the fd is supposed to be passed by the caller in
> this case! So very likely the issue stems from the fact that we're
> relying on passing an fd in a situation where it has no chance of
> being passed due to the way it's configured.
> 
> I don't know if we can run a vtest client against an abns address, in
> which case a solution could consist in using exclusively abns sockets
> for the tests. Another solution could consist in not using the client
> at all and relying on health checks instead to send the request. But
> in all cases that's racy.

Should I file an issue (referring to this thread) to keep track of the
whole issue and possible solutions?

>> In any case this is a bad test, because it is inherently racy.
> 
> Yes I agree. Typically the type of thing I tend to be cautious about
> in regression testing, I know that when we try to go too far in this
> direction we tend to spend more time and energy fixing problems
> invented from scratch in the test scenarios instead of addressing
> real issues. There's a mid-point to find, which is always difficult.
> 
> Note, we could also imagine having a few "unit" tests that require a
> very specific environment and which would be compatible with testing
> by hand (e.g. binding to a fixed port, etc). I see how this could be
> useful.

In Travis we have a clearly defined environment, so that kind of test
should work there as well.

Best regards
Tim Düsterhus

Reply via email to