Prefer wait_until over polling with time.sleep #12553
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
conscott
reviewed
Feb 27, 2018
test/functional/feature_pruning.py
Outdated
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I understand this is just preserving the previous code, but this should probably be updated to use os.path.join like:
# Before
os.path.isfile(self.prunedir+"blk00000.dat")
# After
os.path.isfile(os.path.join(self.prunedir, "blk00000.dat"))
There are several instances of this unrelated to this PR, so perhaps it can just be done in a follow up PR.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks there were a few such cases in this file, but not elsewhere.
Contributor
|
utACK 3a1fc66cd09ff9bb1cda68683e855b507409aabf |
maflcko
reviewed
Mar 13, 2018
test/functional/feature_pruning.py
Outdated
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: Could use shorter code by referring to TestNode.datadir:
return os.path.isfile(os.path.join(self.nodes[node_number].datadir, 'regtest', 'blocks', 'blk{:05}.dat'.format(index)))
Member
|
utACK 9d7f839 |
laanwj
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 19, 2018
9d7f839 test: Use os.path.join consistently in feature_pruning tests (Ben Woosley) 81b0822 test: Use wait_until in tests where time was used for polling (Ben Woosley) Pull request description: This is prompted by and builds on #12545, a nice cleanup / consolidation of patterns. In cases where the exception message was meaningful, I tried to represent it as well in a comment. I expect #12545 will go in first, but I'm happy to squash them if that's preferred. Tree-SHA512: 7a861244001c87fd6b59b6bc248ee741ac8178f7255d6f1fda39bc693c5ff3b7de5f53d13afe9829aef6ea69153481edb0a9d5bc07c36c4f66b4315edd180bb4
maflcko
pushed a commit
to maflcko/bitcoin-core
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 20, 2018
Github-Pull: bitcoin#12553 Rebased-From: 81b0822
HashUnlimited
pushed a commit
to chaincoin/chaincoin
that referenced
this pull request
May 13, 2018
Github-Pull: bitcoin#12553 Rebased-From: 81b0822
PastaPastaPasta
pushed a commit
to PastaPastaPasta/dash
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 24, 2020
9d7f839 test: Use os.path.join consistently in feature_pruning tests (Ben Woosley) 81b0822 test: Use wait_until in tests where time was used for polling (Ben Woosley) Pull request description: This is prompted by and builds on bitcoin#12545, a nice cleanup / consolidation of patterns. In cases where the exception message was meaningful, I tried to represent it as well in a comment. I expect bitcoin#12545 will go in first, but I'm happy to squash them if that's preferred. Tree-SHA512: 7a861244001c87fd6b59b6bc248ee741ac8178f7255d6f1fda39bc693c5ff3b7de5f53d13afe9829aef6ea69153481edb0a9d5bc07c36c4f66b4315edd180bb4
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is prompted by and builds on #12545, a nice cleanup / consolidation of patterns.
In cases where the exception message was meaningful, I tried to represent it as well in a comment.
I expect #12545 will go in first, but I'm happy to squash them if that's preferred.