From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.131]:51098 "EHLO ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752476AbaBBW0W (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Feb 2014 17:26:22 -0500 Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 09:25:58 +1100 From: Dave Chinner To: Filipe David Manana Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com, "linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" , Josef Bacik Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: more tests for test case btrfs/030 Message-ID: <20140202222558.GV2212@dastard> References: <1391220332-22118-1-git-send-email-fdmanana@gmail.com> <20140202215720.GT2212@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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 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 > > > > 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