Re: [fsck.overlay RFC PATCH] overlay: add fsck utility

["zhangyi (F)" <yi.zhang@huawei.com>]

On 2017/11/21 10:30, Theodore Ts'o Wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 03:42:52PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote:
>>> I found that e2fsprogs put tests in the e2fsprogs repository, so I write it
>>> and put in the same place. Now I notice that all xfs test cases put together
>>> in xfstests, so It's also a good choice, not sure which one is better. How
>>> about Eryu's opinion ?
>>
>> IMHO, xfstests is a good place for fsck.overlay tests, but I don't think
>> that's something conflicting with in-repo unit tests, some tests are
>> just not suitable for xfstests. How about writing tests in xfstests by
>> default and only keeping them in repository, if there's any, if the
>> tests are not fitting in xfstests well?
> 
> Zhangyi,
> 
> Here's my opinion, for whatever it's worth.  Things which don't
> require root and which run fairly quickly (ideally less than 10
> seconds; preferably under 5), are better to do in the fsck git
> repository.  That's because it's much faster to run "make ; make
> check".
> 
> Tests are most effective when they are frequently run and used.  You
> may be more willing to live an exciting life, but I'm not particularly
> fond of running "make install" of a development branch of e2fsprogs
> just to run tests.  So that means I have to build e2fsprogs packages,
> rebuild the test appliance VM, and then run tests --- which takes
> *easily* 10x more time.
> 
> The place where it makes a lot of sense to put fsck and resize tests
> into xfstests is where it requires root, or if the tests have a long
> run-time.  For similar reasons of not wanting to live an exciting life
> when it comes to my development environment, I don't like running
> "make check" as repository which can be updated by others as root.  So
> if a file system needs to be mounted (for example, to set up a test),
> or if you want to test on-line resize, then that's an argument for
> doing it in xfstests.
> 
> For overlayfs, it might be that you need to do a lot of mount and
> unmount operations as root in order to run your tests.  So maybe
> that's a good argument to run it under xfstests.  Unless you can make
> small, pre-prepared file system images that you can untar and then
> point at your overlayfsck to check.
> 
> As the Perl developers would say, "there's more than one way to do things".  :-)
> 
Hi Ted,

Thanks for your explain and advice, writing tests in xfstests feels better.
I will consider it and split tests from fsck source code to put them(maybe part of)
into xfstests.

Thanks,
Yi.