-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 141
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
InterceptMessage
cleanup
#1339
InterceptMessage
cleanup
#1339
Conversation
b5e6e91
to
85433a8
Compare
Bencher Report
Click to view all benchmark results
|
Bencher Report
Click to view all benchmark results
|
Bencher Report
🚨 1 Alert
Click to view all benchmark results
|
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1339 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 19.40% 19.09% -0.31%
==========================================
Files 155 166 +11
Lines 10242 11062 +820
==========================================
+ Hits 1987 2112 +125
- Misses 8255 8950 +695
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
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.
LGTM, just added a nit
@@ -80,14 +75,12 @@ impl InterceptMessage { | |||
expected_message_type: MsgType, | |||
replace_message: PoolMessages<'static>, | |||
replace_message_type: MsgType, | |||
break_on: bool, |
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.
I dont mind removing this tbh. It was added because it can be useful to decide to stop the connection between two roles when a specific message is exchanged. Some of those cases are now covered by the check_on_drop
flag thus I think it is cool to remove it.
85433a8
to
f7f58fd
Compare
42be018
to
c6a1fcb
Compare
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.
Good PR, I got the same feeling about this break_on
some time ago after looking at that test!
this is a misleading name, as this is not really a response, but rather the new message to replace the intercepted one
it's not fully designed and motivation is not clear, we can re-design if needed
we need 2 sniffers to assert the message was correctly replaced and fully delivered over the TCP connection
c6a1fcb
to
20ffef2
Compare
close #1338