* xfstests should still make xfs as default? @ 2013-03-27 20:32 Carlos Maiolino 2013-04-08 23:07 ` Dave Chinner 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: Carlos Maiolino @ 2013-03-27 20:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: xfs Hi, working on xfstests after its new directory structures I noticed we should use now something like: ./check xfs/<test> to run some tests, IMHO this is not intuitive and I was working on a patch to make us able to use something just like the old way: ./check <test> But, since xfstests is becoming more generalist than xfs specific, I wonder if we should still keep xfs as default. What you guys think? I'll work on a patch to keep it as default or at least giving a suggestion on how to call a specific test in the new way. Cheers -- Carlos _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: xfstests should still make xfs as default? 2013-03-27 20:32 xfstests should still make xfs as default? Carlos Maiolino @ 2013-04-08 23:07 ` Dave Chinner 2013-04-09 14:03 ` Carlos Maiolino 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: Dave Chinner @ 2013-04-08 23:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Carlos Maiolino; +Cc: xfs On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 05:32:32PM -0300, Carlos Maiolino wrote: > Hi, working on xfstests after its new directory structures I noticed we should > use now something like: > > ./check xfs/<test> > > to run some tests, IMHO this is not intuitive and I was working on a patch to > make us able to use something just like the old way: > > ./check <test> What do you do with duplicate test names? The main reason that the interface changed was to keep the changes to the test harness down to a minimum as it was just moving tests around. All that code needs to be revisited to support arbitrary test names, so there wasn't much point in doing a massive rework only to have to rework it again... But the question is: is the old way a sane way to specify tests in the brave new world? I'd much prefer that test specification is explict, and doesn't implicitly select tests. Indeed, if it implicitly selects tests (e.g. when there are duplicates it runs all duplicates) then we still need a method for running specific tests..... Note that what you are seeing is how the $have_test_arg code processes the test name. It requires that you tell it the directory so it knows where to look for the specific test. You could make it look in each test directory like get_group_list()/get_all_tests() do so we don't need to specify a directory. > But, since xfstests is becoming more generalist than xfs specific, I wonder if > we should still keep xfs as default. The default is whatever filesystem is on the $TEST_DEV, and I don't see that changing. i.e. what we set FSTYP to is the default. Note that get_group_list() and get_all_tests() specifically include the FSTYP directory, 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] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: xfstests should still make xfs as default? 2013-04-08 23:07 ` Dave Chinner @ 2013-04-09 14:03 ` Carlos Maiolino 0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Carlos Maiolino @ 2013-04-09 14:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Chinner; +Cc: xfs On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 09:07:34AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 05:32:32PM -0300, Carlos Maiolino wrote: > > Hi, working on xfstests after its new directory structures I noticed we should > > use now something like: > > > > ./check xfs/<test> > > > > to run some tests, IMHO this is not intuitive and I was working on a patch to > > make us able to use something just like the old way: > > > > ./check <test> > > What do you do with duplicate test names? > > The main reason that the interface changed was to keep the changes > to the test harness down to a minimum as it was just moving tests > around. All that code needs to be revisited to support arbitrary > test names, so there wasn't much point in doing a massive rework > only to have to rework it again... > > But the question is: is the old way a sane way to specify tests in > the brave new world? I'd much prefer that test specification is > explict, and doesn't implicitly select tests. Indeed, if it > implicitly selects tests (e.g. when there are duplicates it runs all > duplicates) then we still need a method for running specific > tests..... > > Note that what you are seeing is how the $have_test_arg code > processes the test name. It requires that you tell it the directory > so it knows where to look for the specific test. You could make it > look in each test directory like get_group_list()/get_all_tests() do > so we don't need to specify a directory. > > > But, since xfstests is becoming more generalist than xfs specific, I wonder if > > we should still keep xfs as default. > > The default is whatever filesystem is on the $TEST_DEV, and I don't > see that changing. i.e. what we set FSTYP to is the default. Note > that get_group_list() and get_all_tests() specifically include the > FSTYP directory, > Hi, this makes sense to me Dave, thanks to the explanation. We have some documentation which says xfstests will run tests for a xfs filesystem by default if no other fstype is specified, I'll change this into documentation then. Cheers, -- Carlos _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-04-09 14:04 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2013-03-27 20:32 xfstests should still make xfs as default? Carlos Maiolino 2013-04-08 23:07 ` Dave Chinner 2013-04-09 14:03 ` Carlos Maiolino
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox