Re: [PATCH v2 1/8] iotests/297: Allow checking all Python test files

[Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>]

14.01.2021 12:31, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 13.01.21 21:28, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>> 13.01.2021 22:27, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>>> 13.01.2021 20:57, Max Reitz wrote:
>>>> I.e., all Python files in the qemu-iotests/ directory.
>>>>
>>>> Most files of course do not pass, so there is an extensive skip list for
>>>> now.  (The only files that do pass are 209, 254, 283, and iotests.py.)
>>>>
>>>> (Alternatively, we could have the opposite, i.e. an explicit list of
>>>> files that we do want to check, but I think it is better to check files
>>>> by default.)
>>>>
>>>> I decided to include the list of files checked in the reference output,
>>>> so we do not accidentally lose coverage of anything.  That means adding
>>>> new Python tests will require a change to 297.out, but that should not
>>>> be a problem.
>>>
>>> I have a parallel series, "Rework iotests/check", one of its aims is drop
>>> group file, to avoid these endless conflicts in group file when you want
>>> to send series or when you are porting patches to/from downstream.
>>>
>>> And you are trying to add one another "group" file :) I don't like the idea.
>>>
>>> Why should we loose accidentally the coverage? Logic is extremely simple:
>>> all files except for the list.
>>>
>>
>> Also.. What about checking python in python :) ? I exercised myself,
>> rewriting it into python. Take it if you like:
> 
> Why not, actually.
> 
>> (suddenly, pylint warns about "TODO"s, so I just drop a TODO line.. Probably
>>   we'll have to suppress this warning in 297)
> 
> I’d suppress this warning altogether, no?  I would like to keep TODO lines in other tests, too, without 297 failing.
> 

I'm for. Otherwise it means we just can't use "TODO" things)


-- 
Best regards,
Vladimir