Re: question about logger tests

[Ruediger Meier <sweet_f_a@gmx.de>]

On Friday 27 March 2015, Karel Zak wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 02:50:33PM +0100, Ruediger Meier wrote:
> > Our logger tests fail if it can't connect to /dev/log. I'd like to
> > fix that case for the test-suite but have some questions:
> >
> > 1. It was confusing for me to figure out the actual
> >    problem. Maybe --no-act and/or --stderr should imply
> >    that --socket-errors=auto turns error printing on?
>
> Hmm.. probably good idea.

I'll send a patch.

> > 2. Alternatively we could use --socket-errors=on for all tests.
> >
> > 3. Couldn't we fix --no-act to not need an open /dev/log at all?
>
> But then it will introduce another fragility, complexity and
> difference between test (--no-act) and non-test mode. I see for
> example "if(ctl->fd < 0)" in code. Now it really skips write() only.

You are right. If there would be a real-life use case for --no-act then 
not connecting /dev/log could be an optimization but I guess there is 
no such use case except our tests.

So how could we skip logger tests safely if /dev/log does not work?

cu,
Rudi