Message287785
| Author |
dsoprea |
| Recipients |
Vladimir Feinberg, Winterflower, davin, dsoprea, sbt |
| Date |
2017年02月14日.17:34:37 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1487093678.66.0.928533126063.issue19675@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
I don't think this can be tested. Throwing exceptions in the remote process causes exceptions that can't be caught in the same way (when the initializer fails the pool just attempts to recreate the process over and over) and I don't think it'd be acceptable to try to spawn too many processes in order to induce the original problem. There's not a lot of surface area to what we've doing here. We can't simulate failures any other way.
Can I get an agreement on this from someone? |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2017年02月14日 17:34:38 | dsoprea | set | recipients:
+ dsoprea, sbt, davin, Winterflower, Vladimir Feinberg |
| 2017年02月14日 17:34:38 | dsoprea | set | messageid: <1487093678.66.0.928533126063.issue19675@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2017年02月14日 17:34:38 | dsoprea | link | issue19675 messages |
| 2017年02月14日 17:34:37 | dsoprea | create |
|