From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <stepnem@smrk.net>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on dcvr.yhbt.net
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-ASN: AS20473 45.76.80.0/20
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS
	shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
Received: from mail.smrk.net (mail.smrk.net [45.76.87.244])
	(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
	 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA512)
	(No client certificate requested)
	by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94A1C1F572
	for <meta@public-inbox.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2024 06:49:16 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net;
	dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=smrk.net header.i=@smrk.net header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20221002 header.b=LePVJ9GS;
	dkim-atps=neutral
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=smrk.net; s=20221002;
	t=1721889753;
	h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id:
	 to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type:
	 content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding:
	 in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references;
	bh=IHlONL/AbMzLWJmuBUY1lV4FWNjr2TzvZPzSj215L3o=;
	b=LePVJ9GSjvld07ZiOAF25FFCEefXV2mPAblE8dFUVGBN+kFtN5Svi1NjK7UKp61CYTXTa3
	5WPwaftUIyXczL/O/GWDiaociLP7EYzAgblzoJf2s+k9JZxfB3j3aiNzp2zyU4SvNja/NF
	vZohZ17IcxaWVg8ijfKJ9kBRuicT4MpD/q8hNv47eC0K3KnkiN6SznaMk/B2wtfAgRJmcR
	ThF6bJFlQVyRe1OI+aFtAHzjn48MHthpJgfeSip+sDbt2/kzDDDUOtpABSRXUdnZ4j9rEC
	jfpTMlsD/yUMP623x0HHSkrw/YQ96K+f8WbRVdfq4AzEfEPL7X7VDwFmIp49xA==
Received: from localhost (<unknown> [192.168.5.2])
	by smrk (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id ebb83851 (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256:NO);
	Thu, 25 Jul 2024 08:42:33 +0200 (CEST)
From: =?utf-8?B?xaB0xJtww6FuIE7Em21lYw==?= <stepnem@smrk.net>
To: Eric Wong <e@80x24.org>
Cc: meta@public-inbox.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] msgmap: mid_insert: reraise on unexpected errors,
 [PATCH 3/4] t/v2writable: test ENOSPC from fast-import
In-Reply-To: <20240725003824.M657642@dcvr> (Eric Wong's message of "Thu, 25
	Jul 2024 00:38:24 +0000")
References: <20240723212837.3931413-1-e@80x24.org>
	<20240723212837.3931413-1-e@80x24.org>
	<20240723212837.3931413-3-e@80x24.org>
	<20240724092229+0200.264800-stepnem@smrk.net>
	<20240725003824.M657642@dcvr>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 08:42:32 +0200
Message-ID: <20240725084232+0200.600561-stepnem@smrk.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
List-Id: <meta.public-inbox.org>

On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 00:38:24 +0000
Eric Wong wrote:

> =C5=A0t=C4=9Bp=C3=A1n N=C4=9Bmec <stepnem@smrk.net> wrote:
>> Just a few nits in the new test messages, if I may:
>>=20
>> [2/4]:
>> > +	like $@, qr/ disk is full/, 'set $@ for ENOSPC';
>>                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>=20
>> [3/4]:
>> > +	$rd->poll_in(10) or die 'strace not ready';
>> > +	ok !eval { $im->done }, 'done fails with ENOSPC';
>> > +	ok $@, '$@ set on ENOSPC';
>>                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> If I'm correct in assuming that no semantic nuance is
>> intended between the 'set $@ for ENOSPC' and '$@ set on
>> ENOSPC' variants, I suggest unifying on the latter (the
>> unequivocal passive reads clearer than the
>> imperative-looking 'set $@').
>
> The former ensures $@ matches qr/ disk is full/,
> while the latter merely ensures $@ is set to a true value.
>
> Arguably, the former could be '$@ reports ENOSPC'  *shrug*

Indeed; 'set for' vs. 'set on' seems too subtle.

Thanks!

--=20
=C5=A0t=C4=9Bp=C3=A1n