Open reubenmiller opened 1 month ago
My doubt is this test is using std::process::Command
, not tokio::process::Command
.
However, I also have a doubt to the value of this test itself. It calls tedge
binary, so it sounds that it's better to write such a test in system test level. Also, since the subscriber in the test has QoS 1 fixed, publishing with QoS 2 is downgraded to QoS 1. Actually, no assertion for QoS. So, I assume that this test's purpose is simply if tedge mqtt pub
works and accepts --qos
option.
For the details, here is the test code:
And we have system test for tedge mqtt pub
.
https://github.com/thin-edge/thin-edge.io/blob/main/tests/RobotFramework/tests/mqtt/basic_pub_sub.robot
Describe the bug
Flaky unit test.
Test name
tedge::mqtt tests::test_cli_pub_basic::some_2_expects
Failures
note: run with
RUST_BACKTRACE=1
environment variable to display a backtraceExpected behavior
The test should pass consistently.