Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 5/5] selftests/bpf: Add test for "bpftool feature" command

Quentin Monnet
2020-02-25T14:54:48Z

2020-02-25 14:55 UTC+0100 ~ Michal Rostecki <mrostecki@opensuse.org>
> On 2/21/20 12:28 PM, Quentin Monnet wrote:
>>> +    @default_iface
>>> +    def test_feature_dev(self, iface):
>>> +        expected_patterns = [
>>> +            SECTION_SYSCALL_CONFIG_PATTERN,
>>> +            SECTION_PROGRAM_TYPES_PATTERN,
>>> +            SECTION_MAP_TYPES_PATTERN,
>>> +            SECTION_HELPERS_PATTERN,
>>> +            SECTION_MISC_PATTERN,
>>> +        ]
>>
>> Mixed feeling on the tests with plain output, as we keep telling people
>> that plain output should not be parsed (not reliable, may change). But
>> if you want to run one or two tests with it, why not, I guess.
>
> I thought about that and yes, testing the plain output is probably
> redundant and makes those tests less readable. However, the only plain
> output test which I would like to keep there is test_feature_macros -
> because I guess that we are not planning to change names or patterns of
> generated macros (or if so, we should test that change).
>

I did not mentally include the header/macros output in “plain output”,
but yeah I guess I was not explicit on this one. So: Agreed, with
“macros” it should not change and it is welcome in the tests, feel free
to keep it :)

Quentin