xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfstests: more tests for test case btrfs/030

To: Filipe David Borba Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: more tests for test case btrfs/030
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 08:57:20 +1100
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jbacik@xxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1391220332-22118-1-git-send-email-fdmanana@xxxxxxxxx>
References: <1391220332-22118-1-git-send-email-fdmanana@xxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 02:05:32AM +0000, Filipe David Borba Manana wrote:
> This change adds some new tests for btrfs' incremental send feature.
> These are all related with inverting the parent-child relationship
> of directories, and cover the cases:
> 
> * when the new parent didn't get renamed (just moved)
> * when a child file of the former parent gets renamed too
> 
> These new cases are fixed by the following btrfs linux kernel patches:
> 
> * "Btrfs: more send support for parent/child dir relationship inversion"
> * "Btrfs: fix send dealing with file renames and directory moves"
> 
> Signed-off-by: Filipe David Borba Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxxx>

Rather than modifying 030 which will cause it to fail on kernels
where it previously passed, can you factor out the common code and
create a new test with the additional coverage?

i.e. the rule of thumb is that once a test is "done" we don't go
back and modify it in significant ways - we write a new unit test
that covers the new/extended functionality. Redundancy in unit tests
is not a bad thing...

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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