• 516052 (unregistered)

    What exactly is the purpose of a wait if you can't rely on it being correct in at least one direction? At that point it's basically just yield.

  • (nodebb)

    If you ask me to pick a language to develop something timing-sensitive you'd have to beat me repeatedly with a stick before I agree to use TS/JS.

  • 516052 (unregistered) in reply to AGlezB

    If you ask me to pick a language to develop something ~~timing-sensitive~~ you'd have to beat me repeatedly with a stick before I agree to use TS/JS.

    Fixed that for you.

  • 516052 (unregistered)

    Also, apparently ~~ does not work in quote tags. Great. I miss BBCode.

  • ttlanhil (unregistered) in reply to AGlezB

    To be fair... The code itself may well be sane, it's stuff in tests. I've had times where I want to load data into the database and then run code that queries it in a test harness (yeah, you can stub out most of the DB side of tests - tradeoffs...), and if you're looking at some sort of eventually-consistent DB then you may need to wait for a bit before querying. You rarely want to do too much of that in unit tests, but an integration test or two (particularly during deploy in CI/CD) to sanity test things can catch weird bugs

    Or you could be testing network timeouts or watchdog code - but that's hopefully a library rather than your general code

  • Rob (unregistered)

    Terrible that this is the best solution.

    No it's not. A better solution would be to not use a 1 ms timeout but use the remaining difference to the target. You start with the desired timeout. If the timeout is triggered after that time, great, you only have one timeout call instead of possibly hundreds. If it gets triggered X ms too soon, you use a timeout of X. Continue until X <= 0.

Leave a comment on “Wait Longer”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #702008:

Log Out

« Return to Article