-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.8k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
quic test improvements #56043
Merged
Merged
quic test improvements #56043
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
2f1329e
quic test improvements
wfurt 8a93fb7
fix incorrect use of PassingTestTimeout
wfurt 57cab26
Merge branch 'main' of https://github.com/dotnet/runtime into quicTes…
wfurt 5756e2c
Merge branch 'main' of https://github.com/dotnet/runtime into quicTes…
wfurt 2be7545
Merge branch 'main' of https://github.com/dotnet/runtime into quicTes…
wfurt 8fc5434
Merge branch 'main' of https://github.com/dotnet/runtime into quicTes…
wfurt b5edbd4
feedback from review
wfurt File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
SInce this is a common, repeated pattern, I wonder if we should have a helper method for it, like CreateClientAndServer or something like that. Or EstablishConnection or something.
We have RunClientServer, but that's not really the same.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yah. I wanted to like SslStream. But if I return tuple we loose the
using var
.We would need to than use good old
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
BTW the helper would be also nice if we want to bet in any retry logs for the flaky listener if we don't find way how to fix it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, it's a little verbose because of the using stuff.
One idea would be to define something like
Then you can just write code like this:
If we feel really ambitious we could generalize
ConnectionPair
to something likeDisposablePair<T1, T2>
. And maybe add some implicit conversion ops fromValueTuple<T1, T2>
...@stephentoub already has something vaguely like this for the Stream Conformance Tests.