xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfstests tests not in the auto group; do we know why?

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: xfstests tests not in the auto group; do we know why?
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 23:50:11 -0600
In-reply-to: <20081220051015.GE17177@disturbed>
References: <49473616.1020307@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20081219214411.GA18003@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20081220051015.GE17177@disturbed>
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Macintosh/20081105)
Dave Chinner wrote:

> I'd say we should add another:
> 
>       fast - tests that complete in only a few seconds
> 
> so that we can run a quicker set of sanity checks while developing
> stuff. The current auto run takes a couple of hours under UML, which
> means a qa cycle doesn't keep up with the rate at which I want to
> test new changes......

Since the tests keep track of how long they ran last time, maybe we can
make that sort of auto-tuning...?

Perhaps rather than "fast" - "slow" might be better because first, it'd
be fewer to mark, and also I think because of how we invoke & select things,

# ./check -g auto -x slow

would do what you want.

So is there agreement that "auto" by itself should include all tests
which are expected to pass (or not run due to dependencies) reliably?

Thanks,
-Eric

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>