Re: [PATCH 06/13] tests/avocado: use more distinct names for assets

["Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@linaro.org>]

On 29/7/24 12:49, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 09:44:31AM -0400, Cleber Rosa wrote:
>> Avocado's asset system will deposit files in a cache organized either
>> by their original location (the URI) or by their names.  Because the
>> cache (and the "by_name" sub directory) is common across tests, it's a
>> good idea to make these names as distinct as possible.
>>
>> This avoid name clashes, which makes future Avocado runs to attempt to
>> redownload the assets with the same name, but from the different
>> locations they actually are from.  This causes cache misses, extra
>> downloads, and possibly canceled tests.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Cleber Rosa <crosa@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>   tests/avocado/kvm_xen_guest.py  | 3 ++-
>>   tests/avocado/netdev-ethtool.py | 3 ++-
>>   2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tests/avocado/kvm_xen_guest.py b/tests/avocado/kvm_xen_guest.py
>> index f8cb458d5d..318fadebc3 100644
>> --- a/tests/avocado/kvm_xen_guest.py
>> +++ b/tests/avocado/kvm_xen_guest.py
>> @@ -40,7 +40,8 @@ def get_asset(self, name, sha1):
>>           url = base_url + name
>>           # use explicit name rather than failing to neatly parse the
>>           # URL into a unique one
>> -        return self.fetch_asset(name=name, locations=(url), asset_hash=sha1)
>> +        return self.fetch_asset(name=f"qemu-kvm-xen-guest-{name}",
>> +                                locations=(url), asset_hash=sha1)
> 
> Why do we need to pass a name here at all ? I see the comment here
> but it isn't very clear about what the problem is. It just feels
> wrong to be creating ourselves uniqueness naming problems, when we
> have a nicely unique URL, and that cached URL can be shared across
> tests, where as the custom names added by this patch are forcing
> no-caching of the same URL between tests.

I thought $name was purely for debugging; the file was downloaded
in a temporary location, and if the hash matched, it was renamed
in the cache as $asset_hash which is unique. This was suggested
in order to avoid dealing with URL updates for the same asset.
Isn't it the case?