From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Roman Grigoryev <roman_grigoryev@xyratex.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 12:52:42 +0400
Subject: [Lustre-devel] Language choice for Lustre tests
In-Reply-To: <CAJz=VjHoqmXKWe+YbHmN-SnaWECUBK39NTaVPhEA12wcg_qTUA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EA3A770421F31B4BB895DD3AB9224495706F0E@fmsmsx119.amr.corp.intel.com>
	<BF3E1573-A1E3-47DF-B1B1-866EB65A0D49@xyratex.com>
	<EA3A770421F31B4BB895DD3AB9224495709D89@fmsmsx119.amr.corp.intel.com>
	<3E3EE9AC-9DD4-4DBC-8045-E9E8323685EB@xyratex.com>
	<5089AB8A.9070402@llnl.gov>
	<34F2324A-7C99-4B59-AB9D-9BDB60912BF3@xyratex.com>
	<20121025215243.GF2555@llnl.gov>
	<CAJz=VjHoqmXKWe+YbHmN-SnaWECUBK39NTaVPhEA12wcg_qTUA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <508A4F5A.8000207@xyratex.com>
List-Id: <lustre-devel-lustre.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org

Hi Kilian,
On 10/26/2012 10:24 AM, Kilian Cavalotti wrote:
> 
> I couldn't agree more. I'm still not sure why Bash has to be gotten
> rid of, and what the improvement would be rewriting a whole new
> testing framework from scratch in an other language, when a working
> one currently exist. It can certainly be improved, but I'm pretty sure
> Bash has been chosen for a reason at some point, and I'm not convinced
> the reasons that lead to this choice are not valid anymore.

Few samples, which comparably hard to implement on bash than on other
languages from my point of view (especially via evolving tes-framework.sh):

 - how could be implemented for current framework random and repeatable
test execution?

 - how could be implemented observation of remote node status while
command executed on it and killed it by timeout?

 - how simple add machine-readable meta information for test, e.f. tags
and timeouts?


Thanks,
	Roman