Re: [PATCH] Btrfs-progs: add make test framework

[Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>]

On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 02:07:43PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 9/9/13 12:13 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 06:32:04PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> >> On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 02:50:56PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> >>> We need to start adding some sanity tests to btrfs-progs to make sure we aren't
> >>> breaking things with our patches.  The most important of these tools is btrfsck.
> >>> This patch gets things started by adding a basic btrfsck test that makes sure we
> >>> can fix a corruption problem we know we can fix.  Thanks,
> >>
> >> That's great. I hope we're going to gather more tests so let's separate
> >> them to more categories from the beginning (mkfs, options coverage,
> >> corrupt-block, restore maybe, dunno what else).
> >>
> >> This makes it possible to do a quick run a subset of the tests (eg. mkfs
> >> related) after a fix is committed.
> >>
> >>>  tests/bad-file-extent-bytenr.img |  Bin 0 -> 4096 bytes
> >>>  tests/fsck-tests.sh              |   34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>
> >> I suggest to put them into a subdirectory (eg.) 'fsck' and prefix the
> >> images with numbers (just a sequence number).
> > 
> > I'm not prefixing with numbers, I want to make it easy to tell what each image
> > is testing for.  I will move them into a fsck directory tho.
> 
> David might have meant "001-bad-file-extent-bytenr.img" though.

Oh yeah that may be good then.
>  
> >>
> >>> --- /dev/null
> >>> +++ b/tests/fsck-tests.sh
> >>> @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
> >>> +#!/bin/bash
> >>> +#
> >>> +# loop through all of our bad images and make sure fsck repairs them properly
> >>> +#
> >>> +# It's GPL, same as everything else in this tree.
> >>> +#
> >>> +
> >>> +TEST_DEV=""
> >>
> >> I found the current test hard to use, eg. I can't just do 'make test'
> >> from the toplevel dir. The script fsck-tests.sh expects TEST_DEV to be
> >> set, but there's no way to do that, because it's set unconditionally to
> >> empty string.
> > 
> > Yeah I wasn't sure how I wanted to do this.  At first I thought about making the
> > fsck tester just make a loop device, but I didn't want to override something if
> > people were already using a loop device.  But maybe I'll just default to using
> > loop5 or something big like that and then if the user wants to change it they
> > can go into the script and change it themselves.  How does that sound?  Thanks,
> 
> Dumb question, can you just point btrfsck at the image itself w/o setting up
> loopback?  i.e. do something like: 
> 
> # btrfs-image -r 001-bad-file-extent-bytenr.img test.img
> # btrfsck --repair test.img

Huh, I'm not sure...yes it looks like it, well that solves that problem.
Thanks,

Josef
> 
> -Eric
> 
> > Josef
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > 
>