From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Petr Vorel Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 12:02:14 +0200 Subject: [LTP] [PATCH] [RFC] runtest/quickhit: Remove. In-Reply-To: <20200831174948.GA15731@yuki.lan> References: <20200831094617.7764-1-chrubis@suse.cz> <20200831174948.GA15731@yuki.lan> Message-ID: <20200901100214.GA4076@dell5510> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it 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