xfstests should still make xfs as default?

xfstests should still make xfs as default?

[Carlos Maiolino]

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

Re: xfstests should still make xfs as default?

[Dave Chinner]

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

Re: xfstests should still make xfs as default?

[Carlos Maiolino]

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