From: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
To: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH] [RFC] runtest/quickhit: Remove.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 12:02:14 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200901100214.GA4076@dell5510> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200831174948.GA15731@yuki.lan>
Hi,
> > Thinking about this a bit more....
> > Since this test is used (at least by me), more as a test of the testing
> > infrastructure rather than the hardware/software under test,
> > maybe it make sense to repurpose the test and adjust its contents
> > based on this new purpose. What would be nice is a test that
> > exercises a bunch of different possible LTP behaviors or outputs,
> > to test whether CI systems calling LTP can handle them all correctly.
> > So, there are 2 attributes of the test that are important to me:
> > - it runs quickly (more quickly than a "full" ltp)
> > - it runs a variety of individual LTP test programs
> > So it might be good to have this be a test that includes items that
> > behave strangely (but quickly). That would make this test more
> > useful for the purpose I'm actually using it for.
> > It might even make sense to rename it to reflect this change of purpose
> > (if it *is* a change of purpose). For example, maybe name it
> > 'smoketest' or 'weirdstuff' or 'selftest'. But 'quickhit' at least captures
> > one attribute that is important - that this test is used as a quick
> > check that basic LTP functionality is working.
> > Just some more ideas....
> I would vote for removing this one and adding either a smoketest or
> selftest. The quickhit name is way too confusing.
+1.
1 or very few tests there which would really test runltp and later runltp-ng
would be enough. Otherwise I don't like duplicity in runtest files (I don't see
much sense in it and we often forget to update it).
> Also if we want something as a selftest we can also throw in a few test
> test library sanity tests that are not even installed at this point.
FYI: A year ago I submitted 'make check' patch
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/ltp/patch/20190924182841.4528-1-pvorel@suse.cz/
I plan to resubmit it + it'd be great to finish Christian's patch which tests
shell library:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1151766/
Kind regards,
Petr
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-01 10:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-08-31 9:46 [LTP] [PATCH] [RFC] runtest/quickhit: Remove Cyril Hrubis
2020-08-31 10:47 ` Petr Vorel
2020-08-31 15:53 ` Bird, Tim
2020-08-31 16:27 ` Bird, Tim
2020-08-31 17:49 ` Cyril Hrubis
2020-09-01 10:02 ` Petr Vorel [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200901100214.GA4076@dell5510 \
--to=pvorel@suse.cz \
--cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.