xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] Use qa_user and qa_group for test 219

To: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use qa_user and qa_group for test 219
From: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:30:52 -0600
Cc: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20121218175006.GD5987@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1355830435-5942-1-git-send-email-jack@xxxxxxx> <50D071BE.20000@xxxxxxxxxx> <20121218175006.GD5987@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 06:50:06PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 18-12-12 08:38:06, Brian Foster wrote:
> > On 12/18/2012 06:33 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > Test 219 requires a special user. Use $qa_user and $qa_group (added in 
> > > this
> > > patch) for that purpose instead of hardcoded uid & gid. This also fixes
> > > a false failure when repquota does not report quota for users not in 
> > > passwd.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > ...
> > > +# check for the fsgqa group on the machine
> > > +#
> > > +_require_group()
> > > +{
> > > +    qa_group=fsgqa
> > > +    _cat_group | grep -q $qa_user
> > > +    [ "$?" == "0" ] || _notrun "$qa_user user not defined."
> > 
> > I assume you mean to use $qa_group instead of $qa_user in the above two
> > lines?
>   Bah, right. The names are the same so I didn't notice my copy-and-paste
> mistake :). Fixed version attached.

The 2nd rev looks good to me.  It makes sense that you'd remove the uid
specific golden output since fsgqa isn't going to be the same uid/gid on all
systems.

Reviewed-by: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>

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