Fix sporadic error in view log REST integration test

[avpinchuk]

This is a bug fix.

Under some circumstances the test may sporadically fails. This occurs when we expect an empty log, but it actually may contains several log records. I'm assuming this is due to the deferred write.

[dmatej]

Nope, this is not how we should resolve it. Finally we would not test anything.
Also those lengths don't have anything in common, the second call should return "what was not sent in the previous query yet" if I understand it well. So then the response can be empty or not; but we have the control over the server, so we know that there should not be any log in between.

Except - there can be some log going through buffers while we do the first call. We receive the response, then the record can be processed, then in the second call we can receive it.

Probably what this test should do is:

1. Check that the second request ends with 200 too.
2. If the second response is not empty, check that the first record in the second response is not contained in the first response too.

[dmatej]

Also - if the test fails, it should print why. Now it would compare numbers, it would not tell anything useful.

[avpinchuk]

Because query param of request formally is an offset from the beggining of the log file, we have two cases:

• when second get returns the emty string then an offset remains same as in previous query,
• when is not empty then offset also greater.

Maybe try to use this conditions?

[avpinchuk]

Also, when second response is empty then url's are equals. And non-equals in opposite case

[avpinchuk]

I'll reopen the PR. Which option is preferred - parse offsets or just compare url's?

[dmatej]

I'll reopen the PR. Which option is preferred - parse offsets or just compare url's?

Here I would check that the API works and accept what is correct result. So there are two possibilities - as you wrote:

• If the URL is same, then there should be no data.
• If the URL is different, there should be a record (first line) not present in previous response.

These two situation I would both accept as correct. Do you agree?