Re: [PATCH 2/4] fstests: filename handling for extended names in ./check was on a wrong place

Eryu Guan
2016-07-14T12:18:40Z

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 11:11:17AM +0200, Jan Tulak wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Eryu Guan <eguan@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:26:07AM +0200, Jan Tulak wrote:
> >> The code handling "./check foo/123", when the real test is "foo/123-bar-baz"
> >> was moved at the earliest position, so everything working with the test name or
> >> path will know the full name. Thus, no "123" and "123-bar-baz" mix is possible.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Tulak <jtulak@redhat.com>
> >
> > Can you please include more details in the description? It seems not so
> > clear to me what the problem is from the description.
> >
> > If I understand it correctly (after playing around), prior to the patch:
> > [root@dhcp-66-86-11 xfstests]# ./check xfs/999
> > ...
> > xfs/999 0s ... 0s
> > Ran: xfs/999-test-case
> > Passed all 1 tests
> >
> > After applying the patch:
> > [root@dhcp-66-86-11 xfstests]# ./check xfs/999
> > ...
> > xfs/999-test-case 0s ... 0s
> > Ran: xfs/999-test-case
> > Passed all 1 tests
> >
> > So the test name is always correct, right?
> >
>
> Yes. Most importantly, this fixes issues around other name-based
> operations, see the new message:
> ---
> The code handling "./check foo/123", when the real test is "foo/123-bar-baz"
> was moved to the earliest position, so everything working with the test name or
> path will know the full name. Thus, no "123" and "123-bar-baz" mix is possible.
>
> An example of this issue is $testname.notrun file. When _notrun "foo" was run
> during ./check foo/$name command, it created $name.notrun. But few lines later,
> it wanted $fullname.notrun. So if you did ./check foo/999, but the file was
> 999-bar-baz, then you got comparing outputs (and most likely a fail)
> instead of a skip.
>
> Another example of this mix is in xfstests output:
> ./check xfs/999
> [...]
> xfs/999 0s ... 0s
> Ran: xfs/999-test-case
> ---
>
> Do you like it now? And do want it as a new version of the patch? :-)

This does read better to me, thanks! And seems you're going to send a
new patchset, then please send a new version with updated description.

Thanks!

Eryu