From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3898DC433DF for ; Fri, 15 May 2020 09:47:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01922206B6 for ; Fri, 15 May 2020 09:47:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="NgZ6cfhi" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 01922206B6 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:46366 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jZWwG-0003GW-5l for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Fri, 15 May 2020 05:47:32 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:38488) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jZWvN-0002OS-AE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 15 May 2020 05:46:37 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com ([205.139.110.120]:32658 helo=us-smtp-1.mimecast.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jZWvM-0003Vl-Ly for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 15 May 2020 05:46:37 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1589535995; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=N6ya2zmJcUDiyFZxHC/XxRocPqoFjxrlb9HicaZi0C0=; b=NgZ6cfhirC6wFsD+36vEp+oNC6g7f8lAJ8izBPb3mII89LpuRA7XJJYG6zXsfZvEdAGkNn NauEK+kmma2tC+gqtrbHKETKnKVBohVAn7JuoIpV52F6qpCKNVdaen8d1/J5a85USxX21Y HXZ4k8K4rvxOBLGzntdOWdvTxl05k4s= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-442-7S-JjKtzPTO4lZ__NIAZUg-1; Fri, 15 May 2020 05:46:32 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 7S-JjKtzPTO4lZ__NIAZUg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59905835B41; Fri, 15 May 2020 09:46:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from linux.fritz.box (ovpn-113-110.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.113.110]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 131F86E9E7; Fri, 15 May 2020 09:46:29 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 11:46:28 +0200 From: Kevin Wolf To: John Snow Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] iotests: modify test 040 to use JobRunner Message-ID: <20200515094628.GD93011@linux.fritz.box> References: <20200514022536.2568-1-jsnow@redhat.com> <20200514022536.2568-4-jsnow@redhat.com> <20200514155319.GL5518@linux.fritz.box> <6f88db54-b311-2952-9bba-0f99df049f44@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6f88db54-b311-2952-9bba-0f99df049f44@redhat.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Received-SPF: pass client-ip=205.139.110.120; envelope-from=kwolf@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-1.mimecast.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/05/14 23:27:07 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Eduardo Habkost , Max Reitz , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org, Cleber Rosa Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" Am 14.05.2020 um 21:37 hat John Snow geschrieben: > > > On 5/14/20 11:53 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > Am 14.05.2020 um 04:25 hat John Snow geschrieben: > >> Instead of having somewhat reproduced it for itself. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: John Snow > > > > I think you should pass auto_dismiss=True to the JobRunner, or (probably > > preferable) change prepare_and_start_job() to start the job with > > auto_dismiss=False. > > > > Kevin > > > > okay, I'll try that out and see if I like it. > > > Wild tangents, as is my normal: > > I also think it would be neat, in some sense, to provide a job creation > abstraction where creating the QMP command in python also creates the > runner with the right parameters based on how you initialized it. > > I've not given these even a proper three minutes think, but some > generalized interface for managing the creation of jobs to use in > concert with the job runner would be slick. JobRunner could have a static method that starts a job (it would take the same options as qmp() and forward everything to qmp(), except that it parses auto_* first) and returns a JobRunner object that you can run later. > (What reminds me of this is needing to remember and understand if I > started something with auto_dismiss or not, which jobs it defaults to > which for, etc. Streamlining the creation and runner could be slick for > faster test-writing in normative cases.) Yes. In general, I think we should keep tests simple (even if that means some duplication) and avoid overengineering testing infrastructure because we could well sink more time there than we'll ever get back, but I guess small and simple wrappers like in this case can't hurt. Kevin