From ede4eac61f48bb685ab420830481393711d9f0d3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: zeertzjq Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2022 22:30:35 +0800 Subject: test: mention poke_eventloop() instead of wait() --- test/functional/ui/screen.lua | 10 +++++----- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) (limited to 'test/functional/ui/screen.lua') diff --git a/test/functional/ui/screen.lua b/test/functional/ui/screen.lua index 61f19c3794..a5af898652 100644 --- a/test/functional/ui/screen.lua +++ b/test/functional/ui/screen.lua @@ -576,16 +576,16 @@ to the test if they make sense. print([[ warning: Screen changes were received after the expected state. This indicates -indeterminism in the test. Try adding screen:expect(...) (or wait()) between -asynchronous (feed(), nvim_input()) and synchronous API calls. +indeterminism in the test. Try adding screen:expect(...) (or poke_eventloop()) +between asynchronous (feed(), nvim_input()) and synchronous API calls. - Use screen:redraw_debug() to investigate; it may find relevant intermediate states that should be added to the test to make it more robust. - If the purpose of the test is to assert state after some user input sent with feed(), adding screen:expect() before the feed() will help to ensure the input is sent when Nvim is in a predictable state. This is preferable - to wait(), for being closer to real user interaction. - - wait() can trigger redraws and consequently generate more indeterminism. - Try removing wait(). + to poke_eventloop(), for being closer to real user interaction. + - poke_eventloop() can trigger redraws and thus generate more indeterminism. + Try removing poke_eventloop(). ]]) did_warn = true end -- cgit