Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] test: 9p: Add test for 9P filesystem

[Kuan-Wei Chiu <visitorckw@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 05:44:10AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Kuan-Wei,
> 
> On 2026-08-29T19:21:13, Kuan-Wei Chiu <visitorckw@gmail.com> wrote:
> > test: 9p: Add test for 9P filesystem
> >
> > Add automated pytest for the 9P filesystem testing directory listing
> > (ls) and file loading (load) over virtio-9p in QEMU ARM64. Also enable
> > the relevant configurations in qemu_arm64_defconfig.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kuan-Wei Chiu <visitorckw@gmail.com>
> >
> > configs/qemu_arm64_defconfig |  3 ++
> >  test/py/tests/test_9p.py     | 82 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 85 insertions(+)
> 
> I think I saw a change to the hooks for this, so I assume it passes OK.

Yes. I tested with:

gitlab-ci-local --variable TEST_PY_TEST_SPEC=test_fs_9p "qemu_arm64 test.py"

> 
> > diff --git a/test/py/tests/test_9p.py b/test/py/tests/test_9p.py
> > @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
> > +    output = ubman.run_command(f"load 9p rootfs {addr:x} /non_existent_file_9p.txt")
> > +    assert "bytes read" not in output
> > +
> > +    output = ubman.run_command("ls 9p invalid_tag /")
> > +    assert test_file_name not in output
> 
> Both negative cases pass for the wrong reason if the command silently
> produces no output. Please assert on the expected error string (e.g.
> 'Failed to load' / 'No such device') rather than the absence of a
> success token, so a future regression that swallows errors still fails
> the test.
> 
Ack. Will do in v3.

Regards,
Kuan-Wei