[LTP] [PATCH 2/2] lib/tst_test.c: Restrict that tst_brk() only works with TBROK/TCONF

[Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>]

----- Original Message -----
> On 2018/11/09 15:54, Jan Stancek wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> On 2018/11/09 1:53, Jan Stancek wrote:
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>> 1) Add tst_check_ttype() to check if TPASS/TFAIL/TWARN/TINFO is
> >>>>      passed into tst_brk() and convert it to TBROK forcely.
> >>>> 2) Only update test result in library process and main test process
> >>>>      because the exit status of child can be passed into main test
> >>>>      process by check_child_status().
> >>>> 3) Increase the number of skipped when calling tst_brk(TCONF).
> >>>> 4) Increase the number of warnings when calling tst_brk(TBROK) in
> >>>>      test cleanup(), other than that print "Test broken!" when calling
> >>>>      tst_brk(TBROK).
> >>>>
> >>>> Fix: #408
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Xiao Yang<yangx.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>    lib/tst_test.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >>>>    1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/lib/tst_test.c b/lib/tst_test.c
> >>>> index 661fbbf..c8d8eff 100644
> >>>> --- a/lib/tst_test.c
> >>>> +++ b/lib/tst_test.c
> >>>> @@ -55,6 +55,7 @@ struct results {
> >>>>    	int skipped;
> >>>>    	int failed;
> >>>>    	int warnings;
> >>>> +	int broken;
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I don't follow what benefit this provides. It generates message "Test
> >>> broken",
> >>> but we already know that test is broken by message in tst_vbrk_() /
> >>> tst_cvres().
> >> Hi Jan,
> >>
> >> We can remove the unnecessary message "Test broken", and also apply the
> >> check
> >> for
> >> ttype in tst_brk() written by your patch.
> > Or maybe add "Broken: " to summary?
> >
> >> According to the issue #$08, we want to increase result counters when
> >> calling
> >> tst_brk().
> >> e.g.
> >> 1) Increase the skipped counter when calling tst_brk(TCONF).
> >> 2) Increase the warnings counter when calling tst_brk(TBROK/FAIL) in
> >>      test cleanup(), other than that increase the failed counter when
> >>      calling tst_brk(TBROK/FAIL).
> > I'd keep counters reflecting the messages. I imagine if summary says
> > "warnings: 1", people would be searching for 'WARN' in output.
> >
> > TCONF - print CONF message, increase skipped
> > TFAIL - print FAIL message, increase failed
> > TBROK - print BROK message, increase broken
> >
> > What do you think?
> Hi Jan,
> 
> Usually, calling tst_brk() can do above behaviors as you said.
> 
> How about doing the following behaviors when calling tst_brk() in test
> cleanup?
> -----------------------------------------------
> TCONF - print CONF message, increase skipped
> TFAIL - print FAIL message, increase warnings
> TBROK - print BROK message, increase warnings
> -----------------------------------------------

I don't think this matches your v2 patch. In your v2, we would
convert FAIL and BROK during test cleanup to WARN. This happens
before message is printed. So I think your v2 is proposing:

TCONF - print CONF message, increase skipped
TFAIL - print WARN message, increase warnings
TBROK - print WARN message, increase warnings

I find v2 style more clear, because message in log matches
summary at the end.

Regards,
Jan

> 
> Best Reagrds,
> Xiao Yang
> 
> > Regards,
> > Jan
> >
> >
> >
> > .
> >
> 
> 
> 
>