On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 08:17:57PM +0100, Jan Schmidt wrote:
> On 19.03.2013 18:09, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >> Furthermore, this increases two constants which make the test simply cycle
> >> a
> >> few seconds longer, increasing the chance to hit on something suspicious in
> >> case we broke something.
> > Normally we don't change existing tests lest new failures look like
> > regressions
> > when they aren't, but hey, "btrfs is an experimental filesystem" so maybe
> > it's
> > ok in this case. ;) At some point when things are settled down, we
> > wouldn't
> > want to make a change like this. But for now it doesn't bother me.
> (justification) I thought about adding this modification as a separate
> test - and I have no strict objections against doing so. It's just that
> I hate duplicating code and I couldn't think of a good way to share all
> that code between two individual tests.
The current way is to use a common.<blah> file to do it.
However, using test templates is the way I want to do it in future -
it will be perfect for these sorts of test variations: