[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v8 0/5] Rework iotests/check
From: |
Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH v8 0/5] Rework iotests/check |
Date: |
Mon, 25 Jan 2021 19:36:56 +0300 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.1 |
25.01.2021 19:08, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 23.01.2021 um 22:04 hat Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy geschrieben:
v8:
about linters:
I didn't modify 297, as Max already staged 297 modifications to test all files.
Also, now I have two complains:
+************* Module testenv
+testenv.py:158:4: R0915: Too many statements (53/50) (too-many-statements)
+************* Module testrunner
+testrunner.py:222:4: R0911: Too many return statements (7/6)
(too-many-return-statements)
Success: no issues found in 5 source files
And I feel, I'm tired to refactor it now.. Probably we can ignore them in 297.
Probably I can
do some refactoring as a follow-up.
I don't think these warning are very helpful, I would agree with
disabling them (even globally).
When testing this with the other image formats, I found some problems.
1. The first one probably means that we have changed the order of some
checks: 150 and 178 have reference outputs for raw and qcow2, but no
other formats.
Previously, the _supported_fmt line in the test would just skip the test:
$ build/check -vhdx 150 178
150 not run [16:45:46] [16:45:46] not suitable
for this image format: vhdx
178 not run [16:45:46] [16:45:46] not suitable
for this image format: vhdx
Now we seem to test first if a reference output exists and fail:
150 fail [16:49:18] [16:49:18] ... No qualified
output (expected /home/kwolf/source/qemu/tests/qemu-iotests/150.out)
178 fail [16:49:18] [16:49:18] ... No qualified
output (expected /home/kwolf/source/qemu/tests/qemu-iotests/178.out)
Hmm. Still, I do think that new order is better: no reason to run the test, when we don't have
corresponding .out file. So, may be just change it into "not run", with same "No
qualified output (expected ..)" message, what do you think?
2. Test case 146 for vpc passed previously, it fails now. This seems to
be because of whitespace that is checked now.
3. Skipped tests display either "..." or "0.1s" as the elapsed time. The
old check implementation didn't display any time for them. I don't
really mind either of the three ways, but a consistent result would
be nice.
Kevin
--
Best regards,
Vladimir
- [PATCH v8 0/5] Rework iotests/check, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy, 2021/01/23
- [PATCH v8 1/5] iotests: add findtests.py, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy, 2021/01/23
- [PATCH v8 2/5] iotests: add testenv.py, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy, 2021/01/23
- [PATCH v8 3/5] iotests: add testrunner.py, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy, 2021/01/23
- [PATCH v8 4/5] iotests: rewrite check into python, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy, 2021/01/23
- [PATCH v8 5/5] iotests: rename and move 169 and 199 tests, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy, 2021/01/23
- Re: [PATCH v8 0/5] Rework iotests/check, Kevin Wolf, 2021/01/25