caml-list - the Caml user's mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kenneth Adam Miller <kennethadammiller@gmail.com>
To: caml users <caml-list@inria.fr>
Subject: [Caml-list] Unit testing Core Async
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 12:33:02 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAK7rcp-24pkY-Bc7U3f8j=x2qn4ziSg+FU=R4KxDuMLytySG1A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1983 bytes --]

I've noticed that Core Async requites that a Scheduler.go () call be
placed-but that never returns. I have a Tcp.server that I'm creating, and I
like to use oUnit for my tests. Monads and all are beautiful, and Core is a
wonderful library, but I'm adamant that I have at least some minimal
functionality testing complete that demonstrates proper behavior as well as
intended usage.

What I'm wondering is the following: would there be a way to have the
scheduler.go call be placed in order to fire things off, but in another
thread have all the test code be dependent on the server's responses and
all of that, so that once completed, it can call Shutdown.shutdown?

I tried this out, and it introduced some issues.

First, I think that my shutdown call got executed before the unit test was
able to complete. This is because using Async's Deferred introduces some
complication if you want behavior to proceed sequentially as in without
building deeply nested callback chains. What I'm used to is asynchronous
send, and blocking receive that operates on a common execution chain. I
don't see any kind of Deferred.await that blocks until the instance
resolves (yes, there's upon, but that's just nesting again because it
returns another deferred.

Second, I think shutdown shuts *everything* down. What I need is just to
signal the completion of the job that was supposed to run, so that the
Scheduler.go returns in order to allow my unit tests to run to completion.

Third, I'm not certain about the semantics of Pipe/Reader/Writer. It's not
behaviorally like what I'm familiar with. For instance, callbacks may
return prematurely and only have part of a message. In ZMQ, what you send
is what you get. So that makes me concerned in regards to the Tcp.Server,
because right now what I need is for the Pipe to just allow blocking
receive so that I can make the threads coordinated, but I need the Tcp
Server to allow me to receive whole protobuf messages.

Can anyone please help me?

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2205 bytes --]

             reply	other threads:[~2015-06-15 16:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-06-15 16:33 Kenneth Adam Miller [this message]
2015-06-15 16:45 ` Francois Berenger
2015-06-15 16:53 ` Carl Eastlund
2015-06-15 16:56   ` Kenneth Adam Miller
2015-06-15 16:57     ` Kenneth Adam Miller

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CAK7rcp-24pkY-Bc7U3f8j=x2qn4ziSg+FU=R4KxDuMLytySG1A@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=kennethadammiller@gmail.com \
    --cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).