diff --git a/tests/stdio.rs b/tests/stdio.rs index 38f48d5ec..0f3a77b34 100644 --- a/tests/stdio.rs +++ b/tests/stdio.rs @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ use std::process::{Stdio, ExitStatus, Command}; use futures::future::Future; use futures::stream::{self, Stream}; -use tokio_io::io::{read_until, write_all, read_to_end}; +use tokio_io::io::{read_until, write_all}; use tokio_process::{CommandExt, Child}; mod support; @@ -85,38 +85,6 @@ fn feed_a_lot() { assert_eq!(status.code(), Some(0)); } -// FIXME: delete this test once we have a resolution for #51 -// This test's setup is flaky, and setting up a consistent test is nearly -// impossible: right now we invoke `cat` and immediately kill it, expecting -// that it didn't write anything, but if there's something wrong with the -// command itself (e.g. redirection issues, it doesn't actually print anything -// out, etc.) this test can falsely pass. Attempting a solution which writes -// some data, *then* kill the child, write more data, and assert that only the -// first write is echoed back seems like a good approach, however, due to the -// ordering of context switches or how the kernel buffers data we can get -// inconsistent results. We can keep this test around for now, but as soon as -// we have a solution for #51, we may have a better avenue for testing this -// functionality. -#[test] -fn drop_kills() { - let mut child = cat().spawn_async().unwrap(); - let stdin = child.stdin().take().unwrap(); - let stdout = child.stdout().take().unwrap(); - drop(child); - - // Ignore all write errors since we expect a broken pipe here - let writer = write_all(stdin, b"1234").then(|_| Ok(())); - let reader = read_to_end(stdout, Vec::new()); - - let (_, output) = support::CurrentThreadRuntime::new() - .expect("failed to get rt") - .spawn(writer) - .block_on(support::with_timeout(reader)) - .expect("failed to get output"); - - assert_eq!(output.len(), 0); -} - #[test] fn wait_with_output_captures() { let mut child = cat().spawn_async().unwrap();