| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The previous version of this test used the old, racy version of
wait_for (see #149). The new version is refactored so that
simulated time is only allowed to advance after each step is done,
so that we can actually be sure that each step in the process will
happen as it should.
In order to get the time-advances to proceed properly, and avoid
polluting state between tests, I've had to introduce some machinery
to encode the proper amount for time to advance. It isn't something
I'd want to use for a whole bunch of tests, but for just one set,
it's fine.
These tests now pass reliably for me.
I wonder if a discrete-event-simulation approach (hello, Shadow)
would let us write tests like these to our hearts' content?
|
| |
|
|
| |
These are my fault; I merged the wrong version of !102. :p
|
| |\ |
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Instead of racily advancing time forward, this commit attempts to rework
how WaitFor works, such that it makes advances when all sleeper futures
that have been created have been polled (by handing the MockSleepRuntime
a Waker with which to wake up the WaitFor).
The above described mechanics work well enough for the double timeout
test, but fail in the presence of code that spawns asynchronous /
background tasks that must make progress before time is advanced for the
test to work properly. In order to deal with these cases, a set of APIs
are introduced in order to block time from being advanced until some
code has run, and a carveout added in order to permit small advances in
time where required.
(In some cases, code needed to be hacked up a bit in order to be made
properly testable using these APIs; the `MockablePlan` trait included in
here is somewhat unfortunate.)
This should fix arti#149.
|
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
This is a big change, but it does simplify the type of Builder a
little, and isolates locking across different (potential) timeout
estimator types.
|
| |/
|
|
|
| |
We can use this in the case where we don't get the lock on the
state file, because another process is running.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The previous code would report all failures to build a circuit as
failures of the guard. But of course that's not right: If we
fail to extend to the second or third hop, that might or might not
be the guard's fault.
Now we use the "pending status" feature of the GuardMonitor type so
that an early failure is attributed to the guard, but a later
failure is attributed as "Indeterminate". Only a complete circuit
is called a success. We use a new "GuardStatusHandle" type here so
that we can report the status early if there is a timeout.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
|
This will cause some pain for now, but now is really the best time
to do this kind of thing.
|
