test_reconfigure_domains.py: Improve comments and readability #537
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Yuan Jing Vincent Yan <[email protected]>
kaikulimu
force-pushed
the
test_reconfigure_domains_py
branch
from
5e9f987 to
818696c
Compare
![bmq-oss-ci[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1416818?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
| URI_PRIORITY_1 = f"bmq://{tc.DOMAIN_PRIORITY}/abcd-queue" | ||
| URI_PRIORITY_2 = f"bmq://{tc.DOMAIN_PRIORITY}/qrst-queue" | ||
| URI_PRIORITY_1 = f"bmq://{tc.DOMAIN_PRIORITY_SC}/abcd-queue" | ||
| URI_PRIORITY_2 = f"bmq://{tc.DOMAIN_PRIORITY_SC}/qrst-queue" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Don't we want to test non-SC domain here anymore?
I am thinking if we can parametrize this with fixtures.
I am also ok if we just switch to SC here without extra work, or we can add an issue to support non-SC if it's worth it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The problem of parameterize testing non-SC and SC domains exist for many integration test files. Will create an issue to support all of them
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there a significant difference in the broker logics so we are better to support both? If we don't expect differences in the logics, might just leave SC-one
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The difference is SC domains are more asynchronous as they need to wait for quorum of receipts from replicas, so it's more susceptible to race conditions. I will create an issue.
Signed-off-by: Yuan Jing Vincent Yan <[email protected]>
kaikulimu
force-pushed
the
test_reconfigure_domains_py
branch
from
74b6eb4 to
a61b854
Compare
|
@678098 Back to you |
Subtle improvements, and use strong consistency domain instead of eventual consistency