From: Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>
To: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: [LTP] new shell library
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 05:54:35 -0400 (EDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <254451816.211402.1475574875165.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161004093549.GC29418@rei.lan>
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cyril Hrubis" <chrubis@suse.cz>
> To: "Jan Stancek" <jstancek@redhat.com>
> Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it
> Sent: Tuesday, 4 October, 2016 11:35:49 AM
> Subject: Re: new shell library
>
> Hi!
> > > What about we do it as:
> > >
> > > TST_ID="du01"
> > > TST_CNT=23
> > > TST_SETUP=setup
> > > TST_CLEANUP=cleanup
> > > TST_TESTFUNC=du_test
> > > TST_NEEDS_TMPDIR=1
> > > TST_NEEDS_CMDS="dd du stat"
> > > . tst_test.sh
> > >
> > > # the actuall test code
> > >
> > > tst_run
> >
> > OK, giving all uniform names (TST_) and adding setup/cleanup/testfunc
> > makes it more clear.
> >
> > What role does ". tst_test.sh" have in example above? Does it
> > have to come after you define all variables? If so, what does
> > it do?
> >
> > If we have tst_run, then it seems that could do all necessary
> > checks and setup and we could include tst_test.sh at any point.
>
> I somehow find it more clear to define all the variables that the
> library script uses before we source it. IMHO that is better than having
> them scattered all around the script, at this point both the old test.sh
> and tst_test.sh scripts enforce that by doing sanity checks on the
> variables when the library script is sourced.
>
> Are any advantages for doing the sanity checks in the tst_run function?
Can't think of any. You (and old test.sh) convinced me to go with your
example. Let's give it couple days, if anyone else wants to weigh in.
Regards,
Jan
>
> --
> Cyril Hrubis
> chrubis@suse.cz
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-10-04 9:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-10-03 14:58 [LTP] new shell library Cyril Hrubis
2016-10-04 8:23 ` Jan Stancek
2016-10-04 8:45 ` Cyril Hrubis
2016-10-04 9:02 ` Jan Stancek
2016-10-04 9:35 ` Cyril Hrubis
2016-10-04 9:54 ` Jan Stancek [this message]
2016-10-04 11:50 ` Cyril Hrubis
2016-10-12 10:08 ` Cyril Hrubis
2016-10-12 10:32 ` Jan Stancek
2016-10-12 12:36 ` Cyril Hrubis
2016-10-12 13:17 ` Cyril Hrubis
2016-10-12 14:54 ` Jan Stancek
2016-10-12 15:06 ` Cyril Hrubis
2016-10-13 15:43 ` Cyril Hrubis
2016-10-27 14:58 ` Cyril Hrubis
2016-10-31 10:03 ` Jan Stancek
2016-10-31 10:39 ` Cyril Hrubis
2016-11-14 13:12 ` Cyril Hrubis
2016-11-22 6:50 ` Cyril Hrubis
2016-11-22 7:54 ` Jan Stancek
2016-11-22 8:02 ` Cyril Hrubis
2016-11-22 10:47 ` Jan Stancek
2016-11-22 11:21 ` Cyril Hrubis
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2016-11-22 12:20 Jan Stancek
2016-11-22 13:27 ` Cyril Hrubis
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=254451816.211402.1475574875165.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com \
--to=jstancek@redhat.com \
--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