From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alasdair G Kergon Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:20:12 +0100 Subject: test/t1000-lvcreate-usage.sh: exercise lvcreate In-Reply-To: <873axdcpzg.fsf@rho.meyering.net> References: <873axdcpzg.fsf@rho.meyering.net> Message-ID: <20070917192012.GN18444@agk.fab.redhat.com> List-Id: To: lvm-devel@redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 04:42:59PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote: > When I run the new test by itself, it does this: > # cd test && ./t1000-lvcreate-usage.sh > * ok 1: set up temp files, loopback devices, PVs, and a VG > * ok 2: lvcreate w/negative stripesize must fail > * ok 3: lvcreate w/too-large stripesize must fail > * ok 4: lvcreate w/single stripe succeeds with diagnostics to stdout > * ok 5: lvcreate w/no stripe size succeeds with diagnostics to stdout > * ok 6: lvcreate w/invalid number of stripes must fail > * ok 7: lvcreate w/invalid stripe size must fail > * passed all 7 test(s) Can you make that easier to parse? Should every test have a reference number (perhaps derived from its filename?) that is not going to change and appears on the output line? Should each test belong to a defined category, e.g. 'lvcreate' above. What role do the *s serve? Would a wider range of characters make the output more readable? Can the version of the test also appear in the test logs along with complete command output? [I noticed a '>/dev/null' earlier that ought to disappear:-) ] 'ok' with 'must fail' is misleading - try inverting the descriptions e.g. 'rejects negative stripesizes' (plural as I'd assume a range of values are being tested each time) Alasdair -- agk at redhat.com