From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAA417CBB for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 17:24:42 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A874304048 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 15:24:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.141]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id tYDrslkGbyCzjG3z for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 15:24:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 09:24:33 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [XFSTESTS v4 0/4] Richacl tests Message-ID: <20160314222433.GC11812@dastard> References: <1457525199-15355-1-git-send-email-agruenba@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1457525199-15355-1-git-send-email-agruenba@redhat.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Andreas Gruenbacher Cc: fstests@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 01:06:34PM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > Hello, > > here is a new version of the richacl tests. xfstests patches need to be sent to fstests@vger.kernel.org (added to CC list), not xfs@oss.sgi.com. > According to feedback from the > previous posting (http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2015-12/msg00316.html), each > of the richacl tests is not run separately, on a new scratch filesystem. Oh, my. So, you've taken this one comment: "The rule of thumb is that there should be one xfs test per individual regression test. You've got at least 10 separate regression tests there, so there should be at least 10 xfstests. They should not be aggregated into a single test - if you need to run them all at once, then that is what the richacl test group is for..." And then *implemented your own execution infrastructure* so that the tests are /listed/ as separate tests in a group file but you still /run them/ as one test? I'm almost lost for words. It seems to me that you've ignored all the comments Eric and I have made to you about properly integrating the tests into xfstests so that they are able to be maintained by anyone who works with xfstests. Instead, you've kept most of the wacky stuff and instead made the richacl tests even more of a special snowflake than they were before. This is not rocket science, Andreas. Both Eric and I have spelt out exactly how to convert the richacl test scripts to use xfstests scripts and infrastructure (e.g. http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2015-11/msg00506.html), but you seem to be willfully ignoring the feedback you are being given. i.e. - the separation of tests between richacl/ and tests// is wrong. Implement the tests directly inside tests//, using xfstests infrastructure, please. - still not using .out files and instead are using your own internal frankenstein output matching to determine success or failure. Use the xfstests infrastructure for golden output matching, please. - now has weird-ass richacl test execution from generic/338 and execute the tests correctly from the test harness itself. Again, use the xfstests infrastructure correctly rather than reinventing your own, please. Most of this is as simple as copying the execution parts of your scripts to the xfstests test scripts, and the output parts of the test scripts into the test.out file. There's no new infrastructure needed for running tests, no separate richacl/ script directory, etc. -Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs