On Mon, 2004-12-20 at 05:17, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> > Hopefully with the regression tests in place this will get better.
>
> On a side-note, you both seem to be inventing your own testing
> framework and regression tests. tcng already includes lots of
> regression tests for tc, tcng and the kernel. Unfortunately,
> last time I checked, it didn't work with 2.6.
I havent looked closely at tcng although Werner has showed it to me a
few times (may be under influence). We need to pick one or other test
setup. I dont care if its what I have, tcng or what Thomas has.
I just stared quickly at what Thomas has and realize its not really
automated. In my case it is easier because i can click on the proverbial
one-button and run 20 tests (including a subset of the policer ones)
and even capturing tcpdumps. I have attached a sample testcase.
They are harder to create and require the environment i have.
But once you create them, you should be saying "go" - go do something
and come back and get results.
Whatever we end up having, my preference would be something along those
lines,
> > [You fear Murphy less than i - and thats a style difference. Your style
> > is actually more effective in Linux because you can distribute the
> > burden onto users. As a matter of fact it is within Daves tolerance
> > range (but not mine[1]). So you should do just fine]
>
> I don't feel like I'm distributing burden onto anyone. As I
> said, I run the tests I deem necessary, and I never send out
> patches of whichs correctness I'm not convinced. So far, my
> history of mistakes has been pretty good.
You have been excellent. My statements are more generic than reflect on
you in person. We have probably the highest amount of visible bugs in a
longtime so i hope you understand my concerns.
cheers,
jamal
M-005-set.tcl
Description: Text Data
|