On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 3:10 PM Cleber Rosa wrote:
>
> On 02/20/2017 08:46 AM, Andrei Stepanov wrote:
> > It depends.
> >
> > There could be a scenario where necessary to run ~ 200 tests at once.
> > If first bad-by-design test forgets/failed to cleanup, then some
> >
On 02/20/2017 08:46 AM, Andrei Stepanov wrote:
> It depends.
>
> There could be a scenario where necessary to run ~ 200 tests at once.
> If first bad-by-design test forgets/failed to cleanup, then some
> sequential tests also will fail.
> It is a question about usability.
>
Andrei,
I've
Still, Cleber's point is valid and coincides with my view. If you create a
subprocess that runs in the background, then you should keep track of it
and reap it in the cleanup procedures.
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 1:13 PM Andrei Stepanov wrote:
> Hi
>
> Cleber, I think your
Hi
Cleber, I think your example is not completely correct. You use "jobs".
Bash/csh/zsh jobs is another topic. Your example is about bash jobs.
Let's take a look a level up:
1. open xterm/gnome-terminal.
2. Run + put it in background: sleep 600 &
3. Close the terminal.
4. Check for processes.
Hi.
It seems to me, that you are talking about global task: "track of special
resources"
Radek's case is much simple: kill all children.
I think it is correct behavior. This is as it should be.
There is nothing to track.
On opposite side, if test want to keep running process that it can
I would avoid keeping track of special resources by the test runner itself.
It's the sort of thing that the test writer would be expected to implement
on cleanup procedures.
Implementing said track of subprocesses would be justifiable if we look at
the following perspectives:
1) We want to
Good morning folks,
Andrei thanks for this line of code I've forgotten to include it. So the
code reads:
def run(vt_test, test_params, env):
cmd = "nc -l %s" % test_params['some_port']
nc_process = process.SubProcess(cmd)
nc_process_pid = nc_process.start()
return
Amador thanks for your