From: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Sabrina Dubroca <sd@queasysnail.net>,
Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/9] selftests: pmtu: Introduce support for multiple tests
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 21:03:20 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180316210320.48a1b17e@epycfail> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <626b0eb0-846a-b00e-58a2-d5c2e3b24a95@gmail.com>
On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 12:53:23 -0700
David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/16/18 12:29 PM, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> > This might be equally counter-intuitive for somebody. If one does a lot
> > of explicit error checking with early returns, my return convention is
> > also rather practical. E.g. in the setup() function I can do:
> >
> > eval setup_${arg} && echo " ${arg} not supported" && return 0
> >
> > instead of:
> >
> > eval setup_${arg} || { echo " ${arg} not supported" && return 0; }
>
> I think it is weird to have 'a && b' where b is done when a fails as
> opposed to succeeds hence the comment. I think a common convention
> across scripts is important but having the tests is more so. Just a
> suggestion.
Yeah, also true. I'll change this.
> Look at fib_tests and fib-onlink-tests. As the number of tests grows,
> output consistency makes your life easier. With printf:
>
> ...
> TEST: IPv4 linkdown flag set [ OK ]
> TEST: IPv6 linkdown flag set [ OK ]
> TEST: Directly connected nexthop, unicast address [ OK ]
> TEST: Directly connected nexthop, unicast address with device [ OK ]
> TEST: Gateway is linklocal address [ OK ]
> TEST: Gateway is linklocal address, no device [ OK ]
> TEST: Gateway can not be local unicast address [ OK ]
> TEST: Gateway can not be local unicast address, with device [ OK ]
> TEST: Gateway can not be a local linklocal address [ OK ]
> TEST: Gateway can be local address in a VRF [FAIL]
> TEST: Gateway can be local address in a VRF, with device [FAIL]
> TEST: Gateway can be local linklocal address in a VRF [ OK ]
> TEST: Redirect to VRF lookup [ OK ]
> ...
>
> the FAIL cases jump out versus echo
>
> ...
> TEST: IPv4 linkdown flag set [ OK ]
> TEST: IPv6 linkdown flag set [ OK ]
> TEST: Directly connected nexthop, unicast address [ OK ]
> TEST: Directly connected nexthop, unicast address with device [ OK ]
> TEST: Gateway is linklocal address [ OK ]
> TEST: Gateway is linklocal address, no device [ OK ]
> TEST: Gateway can not be local unicast address [ OK ]
> TEST: Gateway can not be local unicast address, with device [ OK ]
> TEST: Gateway can not be a local linklocal address [ OK ]
> TEST: Gateway can be local address in a VRF [FAIL]
> TEST: Gateway can be local address in a VRF, with device [FAIL]
> TEST: Gateway can be local linklocal address in a VRF [ OK ]
> TEST: Redirect to VRF lookup [ OK ]
> ...
>
> where your mind has a lot more work to do to find the tests broken by a
> change.
>
> That is also why I chose OK versus PASS -- ok at 2 letters, fail at 4
> the failures really stand out.
I see your point. I'll use printf and make it a bit prettier in v2.
--
Stefano
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-16 20:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-15 16:18 [PATCH net-next 0/9] selftests: pmtu: Add further vti/vti6 MTU and PMTU tests Stefano Brivio
2018-03-15 16:18 ` [PATCH net-next 1/9] selftests: pmtu: Use namespace command prefix to fetch route mtu Stefano Brivio
2018-03-15 16:18 ` [PATCH net-next 2/9] selftests: pmtu: Factor out MTU parsing helper Stefano Brivio
2018-03-15 16:18 ` [PATCH net-next 3/9] selftests: pmtu: Introduce support for multiple tests Stefano Brivio
2018-03-16 18:06 ` David Ahern
2018-03-16 19:29 ` Stefano Brivio
2018-03-16 19:53 ` David Ahern
2018-03-16 20:03 ` Stefano Brivio [this message]
2018-03-15 16:18 ` [PATCH net-next 4/9] selftests: pmtu: Add pmtu_vti4_default_mtu test Stefano Brivio
2018-03-15 16:18 ` [PATCH net-next 5/9] selftests: pmtu: Add pmtu_vti6_default_mtu test Stefano Brivio
2018-03-15 16:18 ` [PATCH net-next 6/9] selftests: pmtu: Add pmtu_vti4_exception test Stefano Brivio
2018-03-15 16:18 ` [PATCH net-next 7/9] selftests: pmtu: Add pmtu_vti4_link_add_mtu test Stefano Brivio
2018-03-15 16:18 ` [PATCH net-next 8/9] selftests: pmtu: Add pmtu_vti6_link_add_mtu test Stefano Brivio
2018-03-15 16:18 ` [PATCH net-next 9/9] selftests: pmtu: Add pmtu_vti6_link_change_mtu test Stefano Brivio
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=20180316210320.48a1b17e@epycfail \
--to=sbrivio@redhat.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dsahern@gmail.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sd@queasysnail.net \
--cc=steffen.klassert@secunet.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).