Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] common/rc: Add _require_{chown,chmod,symlink}()

[Pavel Reichl <preichl@redhat.com>]

On 4/1/21 5:38 AM, Eryu Guan wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 12:00:02AM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
>> Add helper functions that ensure that test is only executed on file
>> systems that implement chown, chmod and symbolic links.
>>
>> Fixed test are: generic/{87,88,125,126,128,193,314,317,355,597,598}
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pavel Reichl <preichl@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>  common/rc         | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  tests/generic/087 |  1 +
>>  tests/generic/088 |  1 +
>>  tests/generic/125 |  1 +
>>  tests/generic/126 |  1 +
>>  tests/generic/128 |  1 +
>>  tests/generic/193 |  1 +
>>  tests/generic/314 |  1 +
>>  tests/generic/317 |  1 +
>>  tests/generic/355 |  1 +
>>  tests/generic/597 |  1 +
>>  tests/generic/598 |  1 +
>>  12 files changed, 38 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc
>> index 0ce3cb0d..9cdfe21c 100644
>> --- a/common/rc
>> +++ b/common/rc
>> @@ -2129,6 +2129,33 @@ _require_user()
>>      [ "$?" == "0" ] || _notrun "$qa_user cannot execute commands."
>>  }
>>  
>> +# check for a chown support
>> +#
>> +_require_chown()
>> +{
>> +	if [ "$FSTYP" = "exfat" ]; then
>> +		_notrun "chown is not supported on $FSTYP"
>> +	fi
>> +}
>> +
>> +# check for a chmod support
>> +#
>> +_require_chmod()
>> +{
>> +	if [ "$FSTYP" = "exfat" ]; then
>> +		_notrun "chmod is not supported on $FSTYP"
>> +	fi
>> +}
>> +
> 
> Does chown/chmod fail on exfat? Like the existing _require_symlink()
> implementation and many other _require rules, we try to actually do the
> action on $TEST_DIR, and check if command succeeds to see if the action
> is supported by current $FSTYP. Is it possible for exfat to do the same
> check?
> 
> We only use whitelist if it's impossible to do such check.
> 
> Thanks,
> Eryu
> 

Hi, 

it does fail. It was actually my original intention to write the _require*() so it would check if the command succeeds as you are suggesting.

However, Eric and Dave were worried that adding more _require*() through the tests would lead to further slowing test execution. This worry actually makes sense to me.

Is there a significant benefit of testing the support vs. maintaining check based on FSTYP variable? I guess doing the check saves us from the need to update the code when new file-system is added, however actually doing the check increases time of test execution (but I haven't done any measurements yet - it's just my guess).

I really don't mind doing it either way and I'm happy to change the code - I'm just trying to explain :-)

Thanks for the comment.

Have a nice day.