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

Jan Tulak
2016-07-14T12:48:04Z

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Eryu Guan <eguan@redhat.com> wrote:
> 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.
>

New version submitted with updated description.

Thanks,
Jan

--
Jan Tulak
jtulak@redhat.com / jan@tulak.me