Re: [QF-Test] Shouldn't "Wait for client to connect" check if the client is (still) running?

• Subject: Re: [QF-Test] Shouldn't "Wait for client to connect" check if the client is (still) running?
• From: Michael Pruemm <eso@?.org>
• Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:40:04 +0200

Thanks for the long explanation. I was suspecting that it was not so easy to determine if the client is still running.

On 19.07.2015, at 21:15, Gregor Schmid <Gregor.Schmid@?.de> wrote:

> That said, your short cut implementation for the case where the client
> terminates immediately is basically fine. I'd modify it slightly, but
> I guess that's just a matter of taste:
>
> + Start SUT client: $(client)
> + Try
>  + Wait for client to terminate (timeout 2000)
>  + call qfs.utils.testrun.stop.stopTestRun  // terminated quickly
>  + Catch ClientNotTerminatedException
>  + Try
>    + Wait for client to connect
>    + Catch ClientNotConnectedException
>      + ... deal with it somehow ...

Yes, this looks better, even to me :-)

It didn't occur to me to use "Wait for process to terminate" here (as you do). I guess it was Friday afternoon, and it was hot ;-)

- Michael

• References:
  • [QF-Test] Shouldn't "Wait for client to connect" check if the client is (still) running?
    • From: Michael Pruemm
  • Re: [QF-Test] Shouldn't "Wait for client to connect" check if the client is (still) running?
    • From: Gregor Schmid

• Prev by Date: Re: [QF-Test] Shouldn't "Wait for client to connect" check if the client is (still) running?
• Next by Date: [QF-Test] Recording Complex Tooltips
• Previous by thread: Re: [QF-Test] Shouldn't "Wait for client to connect" check if the client is (still) running?
• Next by thread: [QF-Test] Recording Complex Tooltips
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread