-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.1k
PYTHON-2390 - Retryable reads use the same implicit session #2544
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
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
test/test_retryable_reads.py
Outdated
retryReads=True, | ||
) | ||
|
||
set_fail_point(client, fail_command) |
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.
Let's use self.fail_point() here.
test/test_retryable_reads.py
Outdated
|
||
set_fail_point(client, fail_command) | ||
|
||
client.t.t.estimated_document_count() |
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.
Can we extend this test to cover a few other operations as well?
test/test_retryable_reads.py
Outdated
if event.command_name == "count" | ||
] | ||
self.assertEqual(len(lsids), 2) | ||
self.assertEqual(lsids[0], lsids[1]) |
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.
Should we fix PYTHON-2391 first? Otherwise this test doesn't prove the fix works correctly since first.command
is the same dict instance as second.command
.
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.
Yes, we should merge the PR for PYTHON-2391 (#2545) first to verify this works correctly.
No description provided.