* Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request @ 2013-03-27 13:23 Rich Johnston 2013-03-27 13:46 ` Theodore Ts'o 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Rich Johnston @ 2013-03-27 13:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: xfs-oss; +Cc: linux-ext4, linux-btrfs All xfstest developers, Thanks again for all your time in submitting and reviewing patches for xfstests. The latest patchset posted here: http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-03/msg00467.html requires all current patches to be re-factored. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thanks --Rich ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request 2013-03-27 13:23 Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request Rich Johnston @ 2013-03-27 13:46 ` Theodore Ts'o 2013-03-27 16:42 ` Rich Johnston 2013-03-27 20:54 ` Dave Chinner 0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Theodore Ts'o @ 2013-03-27 13:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rich Johnston; +Cc: xfs-oss, linux-ext4, linux-btrfs On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 08:23:07AM -0500, Rich Johnston wrote: > All xfstest developers, > > Thanks again for all your time in submitting and reviewing patches > for xfstests. The latest patchset posted here: > > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-03/msg00467.html > > requires all current patches to be re-factored. Given that we are now segregating patches into subdirectories, is it correct in the future tests should be named descriptively, instead of using 3 digit NNN numbers (which has been a major pain from a central assignment perspective)? If so, is there a suggested naming convention that is being recommended? Thanks for getting this change merged in!! - Ted ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request 2013-03-27 13:46 ` Theodore Ts'o @ 2013-03-27 16:42 ` Rich Johnston 2013-03-27 19:05 ` Theodore Ts'o 2013-03-27 20:54 ` Dave Chinner 1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Rich Johnston @ 2013-03-27 16:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Theodore Ts'o; +Cc: xfs-oss, linux-ext4, linux-btrfs On 03/27/2013 08:46 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 08:23:07AM -0500, Rich Johnston wrote: >> All xfstest developers, >> >> Thanks again for all your time in submitting and reviewing patches >> for xfstests. The latest patchset posted here: >> >> http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-03/msg00467.html >> >> requires all current patches to be re-factored. > > Given that we are now segregating patches into subdirectories, is it > correct in the future tests should be named descriptively, instead of > using 3 digit NNN numbers (which has been a major pain from a central > assignment perspective)? Yes > > If so, is there a suggested naming convention that is being recommended? > > Thanks for getting this change merged in!! > > - Ted > I suggest: 1. They should also be descriptive of the test rather than a number. 2. All lowercase letters separated by _ i.e. something like tests/$FSTYP/break_my_filesystem Thanks --Rich ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request 2013-03-27 16:42 ` Rich Johnston @ 2013-03-27 19:05 ` Theodore Ts'o 2013-03-27 20:42 ` Zach Brown 2013-03-27 21:02 ` Dave Chinner 0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Theodore Ts'o @ 2013-03-27 19:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rich Johnston; +Cc: xfs-oss, linux-ext4, linux-btrfs What do you think about renaming the existing tests from NNN to NNN-descriptive-name? That way it will be easier for people who are trying to track regressions, since they can easily map from the new more descriptive name to the old test number for comparison purposes (i.e., to see whether a failure is a regression or not, etc.) Would you be open to changes which did this? I'd suggest sending the changes as a shell script to minimize the chances of patch conflicts. It will cause people to need to regenerate their patches, but that means now would be the time to do this, when everyone will need to be fixing up their outstanding changes anyway. :-) - Ted ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request 2013-03-27 19:05 ` Theodore Ts'o @ 2013-03-27 20:42 ` Zach Brown 2013-03-27 20:52 ` Ben Myers 2013-03-28 0:34 ` Dave Chinner 2013-03-27 21:02 ` Dave Chinner 1 sibling, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Zach Brown @ 2013-03-27 20:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Theodore Ts'o; +Cc: Rich Johnston, xfs-oss, linux-ext4, linux-btrfs On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 03:05:12PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > What do you think about renaming the existing tests from NNN to > NNN-descriptive-name? That way it will be easier for people who are > trying to track regressions, since they can easily map from the new > more descriptive name to the old test number for comparison purposes > (i.e., to see whether a failure is a regression or not, etc.) It does seem like a good idea to help people map from descriptive names to their previous numeric file names. But do we want to bake it in to the file names forevermore? Would it be good enough to start the old tests with something like _was_test_nr 45 that spits out the old test number in the log? Just thinking out loud over here. - z ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request 2013-03-27 20:42 ` Zach Brown @ 2013-03-27 20:52 ` Ben Myers 2013-03-28 0:34 ` Dave Chinner 1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Ben Myers @ 2013-03-27 20:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zach Brown Cc: Rich Johnston, linux-ext4, Theodore Ts'o, linux-btrfs, xfs-oss Hey, On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 01:42:17PM -0700, Zach Brown wrote: > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 03:05:12PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > What do you think about renaming the existing tests from NNN to > > NNN-descriptive-name? That way it will be easier for people who are > > trying to track regressions, since they can easily map from the new > > more descriptive name to the old test number for comparison purposes > > (i.e., to see whether a failure is a regression or not, etc.) > > It does seem like a good idea to help people map from descriptive names > to their previous numeric file names. > > But do we want to bake it in to the file names forevermore? Would it be > good enough to start the old tests with something like > > _was_test_nr 45 > > that spits out the old test number in the log? > > Just thinking out loud over here. Maybe a text file containing the mapping would be sufficient. It's not as if it's going to grow. -Ben _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request 2013-03-27 20:42 ` Zach Brown 2013-03-27 20:52 ` Ben Myers @ 2013-03-28 0:34 ` Dave Chinner 1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Dave Chinner @ 2013-03-28 0:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zach Brown Cc: Theodore Ts'o, Rich Johnston, xfs-oss, linux-ext4, linux-btrfs On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 01:42:17PM -0700, Zach Brown wrote: > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 03:05:12PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > What do you think about renaming the existing tests from NNN to > > NNN-descriptive-name? That way it will be easier for people who are > > trying to track regressions, since they can easily map from the new > > more descriptive name to the old test number for comparison purposes > > (i.e., to see whether a failure is a regression or not, etc.) > > It does seem like a good idea to help people map from descriptive names > to their previous numeric file names. > > But do we want to bake it in to the file names forevermore? Would it be > good enough to start the old tests with something like > > _was_test_nr 45 $ cd tests/generic $ ../../lsqa.pl -b 001 Random file copier to produce chains of identical files so the head and the tail can be diff'd at the end of each iteration. Exercises creat, write and unlink for a variety of directory sizes, and checks for data corruption. run [config] config has one line per file with filename and byte size, else use the default one below. $ ../../lsqa.pl -b 005 Test symlinks & ELOOP $ Do we even really need to change them? Fix the lsqa.pl script be able to take a directory argument, and just use the script to get the description.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request 2013-03-27 19:05 ` Theodore Ts'o 2013-03-27 20:42 ` Zach Brown @ 2013-03-27 21:02 ` Dave Chinner 1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Dave Chinner @ 2013-03-27 21:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Theodore Ts'o; +Cc: linux-ext4, Rich Johnston, linux-btrfs, xfs-oss On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 03:05:12PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > What do you think about renaming the existing tests from NNN to > NNN-descriptive-name? That way it will be easier for people who are > trying to track regressions, since they can easily map from the new > more descriptive name to the old test number for comparison purposes > (i.e., to see whether a failure is a regression or not, etc.) When named test support is done, then we could do this. > Would you be open to changes which did this? I'd suggest sending the > changes as a shell script to minimize the chances of patch conflicts. > It will cause people to need to regenerate their patches, but that > means now would be the time to do this, when everyone will need to be > fixing up their outstanding changes anyway. :-) There's more than just the rename of the file. group files have to change, there's the possibility that the group list and test list handling will need to be completely rewritten, the way test names are output will need work, the result summaries will need to be reformatted to be legible, etc. So it's not just a case of renaming a file - there's still quite a lot of infrastructure work needed before we can start using names rather then sequence numbers for tests. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request 2013-03-27 13:46 ` Theodore Ts'o 2013-03-27 16:42 ` Rich Johnston @ 2013-03-27 20:54 ` Dave Chinner 2013-03-27 21:48 ` Theodore Ts'o 1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Dave Chinner @ 2013-03-27 20:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Theodore Ts'o; +Cc: Rich Johnston, xfs-oss, linux-ext4, linux-btrfs On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 09:46:06AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 08:23:07AM -0500, Rich Johnston wrote: > > All xfstest developers, > > > > Thanks again for all your time in submitting and reviewing patches > > for xfstests. The latest patchset posted here: > > > > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-03/msg00467.html > > > > requires all current patches to be re-factored. > > Given that we are now segregating patches into subdirectories, is it > correct in the future tests should be named descriptively, instead of > using 3 digit NNN numbers (which has been a major pain from a central > assignment perspective)? Support for named tests have not yet been added. From the check script: SUPPORTED_TESTS="[0-9][0-9][0-9] [0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]" Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request 2013-03-27 20:54 ` Dave Chinner @ 2013-03-27 21:48 ` Theodore Ts'o 2013-03-28 0:35 ` Dave Chinner 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Theodore Ts'o @ 2013-03-27 21:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Chinner; +Cc: Rich Johnston, xfs-oss, linux-ext4, linux-btrfs On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 07:54:07AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > Support for named tests have not yet been added. From the check > script: > > SUPPORTED_TESTS="[0-9][0-9][0-9] [0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]" Ah, I thought support for named tests was there. For right now, though, if we have test ext4/123 and btrfs/123, that's OK and they are considered separate tests, right? Or do we still need to keep the numbers unique for now? - Ted ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request 2013-03-27 21:48 ` Theodore Ts'o @ 2013-03-28 0:35 ` Dave Chinner 0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Dave Chinner @ 2013-03-28 0:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Theodore Ts'o; +Cc: Rich Johnston, xfs-oss, linux-ext4, linux-btrfs On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 05:48:04PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 07:54:07AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > Support for named tests have not yet been added. From the check > > script: > > > > SUPPORTED_TESTS="[0-9][0-9][0-9] [0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]" > > Ah, I thought support for named tests was there. For right now, > though, if we have test ext4/123 and btrfs/123, that's OK and they are > considered separate tests, right? Or do we still need to keep the > numbers unique for now? Test numbers within a subdir are unique. So yes, ext4/123 and btrfs/123 are recognised as different tests. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-03-28 0:35 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2013-03-27 13:23 Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request Rich Johnston 2013-03-27 13:46 ` Theodore Ts'o 2013-03-27 16:42 ` Rich Johnston 2013-03-27 19:05 ` Theodore Ts'o 2013-03-27 20:42 ` Zach Brown 2013-03-27 20:52 ` Ben Myers 2013-03-28 0:34 ` Dave Chinner 2013-03-27 21:02 ` Dave Chinner 2013-03-27 20:54 ` Dave Chinner 2013-03-27 21:48 ` Theodore Ts'o 2013-03-28 0:35 ` Dave Chinner
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).