Re: [LTP] [PATCH 2/6] tst_env.sh: Backport common functions from tst_test.sh

Cyril Hrubis
2026-03-18T14:26:28Z

Hi!
> * ROD()
> * ROD_SILENT()
> * EXPECT_PASS()
> * EXPECT_PASS_BRK()
> * EXPECT_FAIL()
> * EXPECT_FAIL_BRK()
> + their dependencies.
>
> ROD_SILENT will be used in du01.sh rewrite, others will be used likely
> in other tests later.
>
> Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
> ---
> testcases/lib/tst_env.sh | 71 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 71 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/testcases/lib/tst_env.sh b/testcases/lib/tst_env.sh
> index 585790a7d0..13d8a8f954 100644
> --- a/testcases/lib/tst_env.sh
> +++ b/testcases/lib/tst_env.sh
> @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
> #!/bin/sh
> # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
> # Copyright (c) 2024-2025 Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>
> +# Copyright (c) Linux Test Project, 2026
> #
> # This is a minimal test environment for a shell scripts executed from C by
> # tst_run_shell() function. Shell tests must use the tst_loader.sh instead!
> @@ -30,3 +31,73 @@ tst_brk_()
>
> alias tst_res="tst_res_ $tst_script_name \$LINENO"
> alias tst_brk="tst_brk_ $tst_script_name \$LINENO"
> +
> +ROD_SILENT()
> +{
> + local tst_out
> +
> + tst_out=$(tst_rod "$@" 2>&1)
> + if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then
> + echo "$tst_out"
> + tst_brk TBROK "$@ failed"
> + fi
> +}
> +
> +ROD()
> +{
> + tst_rod "$@"
> + if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then
> + tst_brk TBROK "$@ failed"
> + fi
> +}

Since we are starting from a scratch I wonder if we should call this
SAFE instead so that the name is closer to the SAFE_XXX macros in C.

> +_tst_expect_pass()
> +{
> + local fnc="$1"
> + shift
> +
> + tst_rod "$@"

If I remmeber correctly the whole reason why we introduced tst_rod.c was
that passing the $@ like this causes the $@ to be evaluated twice and
produces unexpected results.

> + if [ $? -eq 0 ]; then
> + tst_res TPASS "$@ passed as expected"
> + return 0
> + else
> + $fnc TFAIL "$@ failed unexpectedly"
> + return 1
> + fi
> +}
> +
> +_tst_expect_fail()
> +{
> + local fnc="$1"
> + shift
> +
> + # redirect stderr since we expect the command to fail
> + tst_rod "$@" 2> /dev/null
> + if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then
> + tst_res TPASS "$@ failed as expected"
> + return 0
> + else
> + $fnc TFAIL "$@ passed unexpectedly"
> + return 1
> + fi
> +}
> +
> +EXPECT_PASS()
> +{
> + _tst_expect_pass tst_res "$@"
> +}
> +
> +EXPECT_PASS_BRK()
> +{
> + _tst_expect_pass tst_brk "$@"
> +}

I'm not sure that adding the PASS_BRK and FAIL_BRK is a good idea. I
would stick to simple EXPECT_PASS and EXPECT_FAIL. And maybe we can
export TST_PASS variable as we do in C to match the API. I think that
the closer the C and shell API are the better.

> +EXPECT_FAIL()
> +{
> + _tst_expect_fail tst_res "$@"
> +}
> +
> +EXPECT_FAIL_BRK()
> +{
> + _tst_expect_fail tst_brk "$@"
> +}
> --
> 2.51.0
>

--
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz