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 497177F3F for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:08:27 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28AA430407A for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 07:08:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yh0-f43.google.com (mail-yh0-f43.google.com [209.85.213.43]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id NoNQSdAv3wXcZnES (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 07:08:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yh0-f43.google.com with SMTP id f73so81871yha.30 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 07:08:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <517695CF.1030703@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:08:15 -0400 From: "Michael L. Semon" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: xfstests: kludge patch for per-dir test number sorting by ./check References: <5169C4FE.4030209@gmail.com> <20130414232600.GA5117@destitution> <516B740A.1050607@gmail.com> <51758099.9030302@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <51758099.9030302@sgi.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Rich Johnston Cc: xfstests On 04/22/2013 02:25 PM, Rich Johnston wrote: > On 04/14/2013 10:29 PM, Michael L. Semon wrote: >> On 04/14/2013 07:26 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: >>> On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 04:50:06PM -0400, Michael L. Semon wrote: >>>> I'm trying to get the new xfstests to run the XFS tests first, then >>> >>> The question is why do you want to do this? Is there any specific >>> reason for running the tests in that order? >>> >>> FWIW, if all you want to do is run the xfs tests, run: >>> >>> $ sudo ./check xfs[0-9][0-9][0-9] >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Dave. >>> >> >> Personal preference. I'd like to run both series of tests, sometimes >> attended, sometimes unattended. It's fine if a generic/ test crashes >> the PC while running unattended, but I'd much rather the xfs/ tests have >> first crack at that. >> >> My version of the syntax was `./check xfs/[0-9][0-9][0-9]`, but that >> becomes rough when skipping tests. I'll still try your version, but > > I think this is a reasonable change request and I can see how this would > be very rough if you wanted to skip tests. Anyone have a reason why not > to do this? > > Regards, > --Rich It's a good change request, but on further testing, it seems like my kludge patch breaks basic sorting, i.e. `./check generic/003 generic/001 generic/002` will run the tests in exactly that order. That's not necessarily bad--principle of least surprise--but it means that to get the old xfstests sorting behavior, it would have to be sorted using another method. Thanks for considering the need for more control over the order in which groups are run. It's most certainly appreciated. Thinking out loud: Is there a disadvantage to setting $SRC_DIR to "." instead of "tests"? It looks like a nice way to get `./check tests/generic/001` to run tests/generic/001 instead of issuing "unknown test, ignored", but I've tested it only for generic/001 here at work. Michael >> irrationality and frustration have driven me to simply adding a "mls" >> group to all of the tests//group files, then hoping that a >> `./check -g mls` would run everything in the correct order. That led to >> trying to figure out why the generic/ tests were running first, and so >> on and so forth... >> >> Thanks! >> >> Michael _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs