> On Jan. 13, 2013, 6:45 p.m., Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > and why exactly do you sleep instead of looping with waitforreadyread? > > Jon Severinsson wrote: > Because that would be an (almost) busy-loop (there are already *some* > data, so waitForReadyRead could return before the timeout).
right. my (kpty) implementation waits for *any* data to be available (which is (or was) consistent with something i don't remember), while thiago's (qsocket & co.) implementations wait for *more* data to be available. this really should be made consistent at some point ... at this point i think thiago's interpretation is more useful, even if it means writing more code in the common case. - Oswald ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/108385/#review25394 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Jan. 13, 2013, 1:03 p.m., Jon Severinsson wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/108385/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Jan. 13, 2013, 1:03 p.m.) > > > Review request for KDE Frameworks. > > > Description > ------- > > Increase timeout, and sleep a while after waitForReadyRead() returns, > as it only guarantees that *some* data is available to read, while > the test assumes that a full line of data is available to read... > > This reduces failure rate from 10% to 2% on my setup. > > > Diffs > ----- > > kpty/tests/kptyprocesstest.cpp b95ae26 > > Diff: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/108385/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Jon Severinsson > >
_______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
