[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v2 12/22] qemu-iotests/199: fix style

From: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/22] qemu-iotests/199: fix style
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 09:32:26 +0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0

24.07.2020 01:03, Eric Blake wrote:
On 2/17/20 9:02 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
Mostly, satisfy pep8 complains.

Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
  tests/qemu-iotests/199 | 13 +++++++------
  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

With none of your series applied, I get:

$ ./check -qcow2 199
199      not run    [16:52:34] [16:52:34]                    not suitable for 
this cache mode: writeback
Not run: 199
Passed all 0 iotests
199      fail       [16:53:37] [16:53:37]                    output mismatch 
(see 199.out.bad)
--- /home/eblake/qemu/tests/qemu-iotests/199.out    2020-07-23 
16:48:56.275529368 -0500
+++ /home/eblake/qemu/build/tests/qemu-iotests/199.out.bad    2020-07-23 
16:53:37.728416207 -0500
@@ -1,5 +1,13 @@
+ERROR: test_postcopy (__main__.TestDirtyBitmapPostcopyMigration)
+Traceback (most recent call last):
+  File "199", line 41, in setUp
+    os.mkfifo(fifo)
+FileExistsError: [Errno 17] File exists
  Ran 1 tests

+FAILED (errors=1)
Failures: 199
Failed 1 of 1 iotests

Ah, 'scratch/mig_fifo' was left over from some other aborted run of the test. I 
removed that file (which implies it might be nice if the test handled that 
automatically, instead of making me do it), and tried again; now I got the 

199      pass       [17:00:34] [17:01:48]  74s
Passed all 1 iotests

After trying to rebase your series, I once again got failures, but that could mean 
I botched the rebase (since quite a few of the code patches earlier in the series 
were non-trivially changed).> If you send a v3 (which would be really nice!), 
I'd hoist this and 13/22 first in the series, to get to a point where testing 199 
works, to then make it easier to demonstrate what the rest of the 199 enhancements 
do in relation to the non-iotest patches.  But I like that you separated the 199 
improvements from the code - testing-wise, it's easy to apply the iotests patches 
first, make sure it fails, then apply the code patches, and make sure it passes, 
to prove that the enhanced test now covers what the code fixes did.

A bit off-topic:

Yes, that's our usual scheme: test goes after bug-fix, so careful reviewers 
always have to apply patches in different order to check is there a real 
bug-fix.. And the only benefit of such scheme - not to break git bisect. Still, 
I think we can do better:

 - apply test first, just put it into "bug" group
 - check script should ignore "bug" group (unless it explicitly specified, or 
direct test run)
 - bug-fix patch removes test from "bug" group

So bisect is not broken and we achieve native ordering: problem exists (test fails) 
-> fixing -> no problem (test pass).

I think, I'll add "bug" group as a follow up to my "[PATCH v4 0/9] Rework 
iotests/check", which I really hope will land one day.

PS: I've successfully rebased the series, and test pass. I'll now fix all 
review notes and resend soon.

Best regards,

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]