From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Filipe David Manana <fdmanana@gmail.com>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com,
"linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>,
Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: more tests for test case btrfs/030
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 09:25:58 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140202222558.GV2212@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAL3q7H7wgDvUWUJdZJSswm+hx==GvyeVMd=sh_yNkCVOTyyypw@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 10:08:06PM +0000, Filipe David Manana wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 02:05:32AM +0000, Filipe David Borba Manana wrote:
> >> This change adds some new tests for btrfs' incremental send feature.
> >> These are all related with inverting the parent-child relationship
> >> of directories, and cover the cases:
> >>
> >> * when the new parent didn't get renamed (just moved)
> >> * when a child file of the former parent gets renamed too
> >>
> >> These new cases are fixed by the following btrfs linux kernel patches:
> >>
> >> * "Btrfs: more send support for parent/child dir relationship inversion"
> >> * "Btrfs: fix send dealing with file renames and directory moves"
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Filipe David Borba Manana <fdmanana@gmail.com>
> >
> > Rather than modifying 030 which will cause it to fail on kernels
> > where it previously passed, can you factor out the common code and
> > create a new test with the additional coverage?
> >
> > i.e. the rule of thumb is that once a test is "done" we don't go
> > back and modify it in significant ways - we write a new unit test
> > that covers the new/extended functionality. Redundancy in unit tests
> > is not a bad thing...
>
> Right. The only reason I did this, instead of a new test file, is that
> because the former fix which btrfs/030 relates to is not yet in any
> kernel release. Given this fact, what do you think?
Ok, so if it already fails for everyone, then I think we'll be fine
to modify it like this. "done" is a flexible concept when it comes
to unit tests ;)
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-02-02 22:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-02-01 2:05 [PATCH] xfstests: more tests for test case btrfs/030 Filipe David Borba Manana
2014-02-02 21:57 ` Dave Chinner
2014-02-02 22:08 ` Filipe David Manana
2014-02-02 22:25 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140202222558.GV2212@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=fdmanana@gmail.com \
--cc=jbacik@fb.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).