Re: [PATCH 04/28] check-parallel: report how many tests were _notrun

[Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>]

On Mon, May 05, 2025 at 03:28:10PM +0530, Nirjhar Roy (IBM) wrote:
> On Thu, 2025-04-17 at 13:00 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> > 
> > We already count tests "run" and tests that failed, but there is no
> > indication of how many tests were _notrun. With tests actually
> > failing to run because of things like bugs in _scratch_mkfs_sized
> > being reported as "_notrun" instead of failing, visibility of
> > changing numbers of _notrun tests is needed.
> This looks okay to me. 2 questions below. Apart from that, this looks
> good to me.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Nirjhar Roy (IBM) <nirjhar.roy.lists@gmail.com>
> 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  check-parallel | 5 ++++-
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/check-parallel b/check-parallel
> > index c85437252..d68d76e55 100755
> > --- a/check-parallel
> > +++ b/check-parallel
> > @@ -188,7 +188,10 @@ done;
> >  wait
> >  
> >  echo -n "Tests run: "
> > -grep Ran /mnt/xfs/*/log | sed -e 's,^.*:,,' -e 's, ,\n,g' | sort | uniq | wc -l
> > +grep Ran $basedir/*/log | sed -e 's,^.*:,,' -e 's, ,\n,g' | sort | uniq | wc -l
> Nit: /mnt/xfs --> $basedir is not related to this change, right? Should
> we move it to a different commit/patch?

I don't see much point in separating it out into a different patch.
That makes more work for everyone and it's a simply, obvious fix to
reporting code this patch is adding to...

> Not related to this change - Can we change the above statement to
> something like it is done below for _notrun i.e 
> grep "Ran $basedir/*/log" | uniq | sed ... | wc - l
> in this way we can get rid of the sort command?

Don't think so - uniq only filters adjacent lines. You have to sort
the input to put all the duplicates together in the stream before
uniq will detect and remove them. I suspect that it is possible to
use 'sort -u' rather than 'sort | uniq' but I've always used the
latter because not all implementations of sort support the '-u'
option.

-Dave.

-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com