xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfstests: kludge patch for per-dir test number sorting by ./check

To: Rich Johnston <rjohnston@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: xfstests: kludge patch for per-dir test number sorting by ./check
From: "Michael L. Semon" <mlsemon35@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:08:15 -0400
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfstests <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=axoU7u/P/0CF8zkjDGFb0a/0zY3YdfwAOBBhL7/m+hw=; b=F6uoqcl6vHYZIeXEGUWVgYH60SnZP6q1CBZbA45V6kot8bisXGgeAefJrlTNrd/iOE 3Rz0WSqX6WJBuGaZL/3I0qiF7SH4YrCW9HUzi0+Ag50u0hs5EJROAm5zk/IcvH2N2GYK BehcZTY3KYFdRiO5YkccThIojR0s/izwTFtKTeERbVZCyBSsBaLi/QDUODd7UpPG3hPN yuvbHz2Hj0wh4dP44GkUPRp6wcnMecWWLpCfr7Ok2q6RCdPL6VnM79KWSD+c8xBB5J3a odpCE+dPoyMps609gHhokKNoHGxDF0yEL4cVDtLE+ybMcKT23oV0hHkvpTFoDNmsZKJD xqmw==
In-reply-to: <51758099.9030302@xxxxxxx>
References: <5169C4FE.4030209@xxxxxxxxx> <20130414232600.GA5117@destitution> <516B740A.1050607@xxxxxxxxx> <51758099.9030302@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
On 04/22/2013 02:25 PM, Rich Johnston wrote:
On 04/14/2013 10:29 PM, Michael L. Semon wrote:
On 04/14/2013 07:26 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 04:50:06PM -0400, Michael L. Semon wrote:
I'm trying to get the new xfstests to run the XFS tests first, then

The question is why do you want to do this? Is there any specific
reason for running the tests in that order?

FWIW, if all you want to do is run the xfs tests, run:

$ sudo ./check xfs[0-9][0-9][0-9]

Cheers,

Dave.


Personal preference.  I'd like to run both series of tests, sometimes
attended, sometimes unattended.  It's fine if a generic/ test crashes
the PC while running unattended, but I'd much rather the xfs/ tests have
first crack at that.

My version of the syntax was `./check xfs/[0-9][0-9][0-9]`, but that
becomes rough when skipping tests.  I'll still try your version, but

I think this is a reasonable change request and I can see how this would
be very rough if you wanted to skip tests. Anyone have a reason why not
to do this?

Regards,
--Rich

It's a good change request, but on further testing, it seems like my kludge patch breaks basic sorting, i.e. `./check generic/003 generic/001 generic/002` will run the tests in exactly that order. That's not necessarily bad--principle of least surprise--but it means that to get the old xfstests sorting behavior, it would have to be sorted using another method.

Thanks for considering the need for more control over the order in which groups are run. It's most certainly appreciated.

Thinking out loud: Is there a disadvantage to setting $SRC_DIR to "." instead of "tests"? It looks like a nice way to get `./check tests/generic/001` to run tests/generic/001 instead of issuing "unknown test, ignored", but I've tested it only for generic/001 here at work.

Michael

irrationality and frustration have driven me to simply adding a "mls"
group to all of the tests/<fsgroup>/group files, then hoping that a
`./check -g mls` would run everything in the correct order.  That led to
trying to figure out why the generic/ tests were running first, and so
on and so forth...

Thanks!

Michael

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