From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39020)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1asnej-00042T-H5
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 04:38:46 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1asnee-0000XT-Ln
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 04:38:41 -0400
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 10:38:28 +0200
From: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20160420083828.GC6517@noname.str.redhat.com>
References: <1460633543-7366-1-git-send-email-silbe@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<87ega39yez.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org>
	<87inzd7qss.fsf@oc4731375738.ibm.com>
	<87twixyecs.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org>
	<874max7dcc.fsf@oc4731375738.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <874max7dcc.fsf@oc4731375738.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for-2.6?] qemu-iotests: iotests: fail hard
 if not run via "check"
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Sascha Silbe <silbe@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org, Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com>

Am 19.04.2016 um 18:49 hat Sascha Silbe geschrieben:
> Dear Markus,
> 
> Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> > Say you had an accurate way to find out whether we're running under
> > "check".  You could then reject any attempt to run the test directly.
> > I'd oppose that.
> >
> > It's okay to have test wrapper scripts to configure the tests just so.
> > It's okay to tell people to use them.  But "you can't do that, Dave" is
> > not okay. [...]
> 
> AFAICT the environment in which the individual test cases run isn't
> well-defined. Currently it's indirectly defined by whatever "check"
> does.
> 
> The goal of the patch is to catch unwary developers invoking the tests
> directly from the command line, providing them with useful advice. If
> somebody wants to write another test runner (in place of "check"), it's
> their responsibility to set up the environment appropriately. (They
> could even set an environment variable "I_AM_CHECK=yes" if that's part
> of the environment the tests expect).
> 
> I'd be perfectly fine with defining the environment more clearly and
> possibly extending the implementation to allow individual test cases to
> be invoked directly (without a test runner like "check"). But that would
> be 2.7 material.

At this point in the 2.6 release cycle, this series is 2.7 material
anyway. It's critical fixes only now.

Kevin