More tests for new feature try

[thibaultduponchelle]

Hello,

This is some more tests for the try/catch feature 😀

I tried to stress a bit the feature with some (kind of) real use cases (signal, eval, propagation).

[thibaultduponchelle]

@leonerd 😃

[jkeenan]

Hello,

This is some more tests for the try/catch feature grinning

I tried to stress a bit the feature with some (kind of) real use cases (signal, eval, propagation).

@leonerd, can you review this p.r.? I'm inclined to apply it within 7 days unless you indicate otherwise.

[jkeenan]

@thibaultduponchelle , could you update your pull request based on the feedback ^^ from @leonerd and @haarg ? Thanks.

[thibaultduponchelle]

Thank you @leonerd and @haarg for the review (and thank you @jkeenan). I updated according to the remarks 👍🏼

[jkeenan]

Thank you @leonerd and @haarg for the review (and thank you @jkeenan). I updated according to the remarks 👍🏼

@leonerd and @haarg, can you review the contributor's most recent changes in this pull request? Thanks.

[leonerd]

Overall no huge objection, though in parts I'm unsure quite the value being added by the tests. While "more tests are always good", there gets to a point where we're just testing many minor variations on the same idea, which of course adds size and time.

The signal one at the end, in particular, doesn't actually test signal propagation through a try boundary, only entirely within on.

[jkeenan]

The signal one at the end, in particular, doesn't actually test signal propagation through a try boundary, only entirely within on.

@thibaultduponchelle, can you respond to this point raised by @leonerd ?

Thank you very much. Jim Keenan

[thibaultduponchelle]

@jkeenan I’m going to do the change 👍🏼

[thibaultduponchelle]

@jkeenan @leonerd I moved SIGINT handler out of try {} block and added an outer and inner block to make it clearer that correct catch is reached.