From: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
To: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH] [RFC] runtest/quickhit: Remove.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 12:02:14 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200901100214.GA4076@dell5510> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200831174948.GA15731@yuki.lan>
Hi,
> > Thinking about this a bit more....
> > Since this test is used (at least by me), more as a test of the testing
> > infrastructure rather than the hardware/software under test,
> > maybe it make sense to repurpose the test and adjust its contents
> > based on this new purpose. What would be nice is a test that
> > exercises a bunch of different possible LTP behaviors or outputs,
> > to test whether CI systems calling LTP can handle them all correctly.
> > So, there are 2 attributes of the test that are important to me:
> > - it runs quickly (more quickly than a "full" ltp)
> > - it runs a variety of individual LTP test programs
> > So it might be good to have this be a test that includes items that
> > behave strangely (but quickly). That would make this test more
> > useful for the purpose I'm actually using it for.
> > It might even make sense to rename it to reflect this change of purpose
> > (if it *is* a change of purpose). For example, maybe name it
> > 'smoketest' or 'weirdstuff' or 'selftest'. But 'quickhit' at least captures
> > one attribute that is important - that this test is used as a quick
> > check that basic LTP functionality is working.
> > Just some more ideas....
> I would vote for removing this one and adding either a smoketest or
> selftest. The quickhit name is way too confusing.
+1.
1 or very few tests there which would really test runltp and later runltp-ng
would be enough. Otherwise I don't like duplicity in runtest files (I don't see
much sense in it and we often forget to update it).
> Also if we want something as a selftest we can also throw in a few test
> test library sanity tests that are not even installed at this point.
FYI: A year ago I submitted 'make check' patch
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/ltp/patch/20190924182841.4528-1-pvorel@suse.cz/
I plan to resubmit it + it'd be great to finish Christian's patch which tests
shell library:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1151766/
Kind regards,
Petr
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-01 10:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-08-31 9:46 [LTP] [PATCH] [RFC] runtest/quickhit: Remove Cyril Hrubis
2020-08-31 10:47 ` Petr Vorel
2020-08-31 15:53 ` Bird, Tim
2020-08-31 16:27 ` Bird, Tim
2020-08-31 17:49 ` Cyril Hrubis
2020-09-01 10:02 ` Petr Vorel [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200901100214.GA4076@dell5510 \
--to=pvorel@suse.cz \
--cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox