On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Darin Petkov <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 11:15 AM, John Admanski <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Right, but with this patch I would think that instead of prepending args >> to the control file like in you original patch you could instead pass them >> through via the new -a args? I don't know that it's any neater, from the >> server point of view, but it at least passes them through the same codepath >> in the client. > > > I considered that too but there's some added complexity/fragility with > going through shell args, python tuple, back to shell args... and escaping > white-space, etc. This approach seemed simpler from that point of view. > > Darin > > Yeah, I'm not sure the added complexity of translating it back into shell args on the server side is worth the reduced complexity on the client of only having one code path. This LGTM. -- John > > >> That's more of an implementation detail, though; I'm happy enough with >> these two patches at least preserving feature parity between client-only and >> client+server uses. >> >> -- John >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Darin Petkov <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> John, >>> >>> Attached is a separate patch that adds support for args to >>> client/bin/autotest. The downside of doing it this way is that it implements >>> a separate path for passing args to client-side control. The benefit is that >>> it's simple. >>> >>> Darin >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 8:33 AM, John Admanski <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> I was looking at this a bit more, and I still see an issue; now you >>>> can't write code that uses args that just works on a straight client, you >>>> have to be launching the client via autoserv. I suppose that's not a huge >>>> problem, since autoserv is the only way that you can set args anyway, but I >>>> guess I'd just envisioned a grander patch that actually added support for >>>> command-line args to client/bin/autotest, and then just used >>>> server/autotest.py to pass through any autoserv args. >>>> >>>> Still, I think it's not a huge deal. I'm just a little worried about the >>>> continued trend of more and more code being written that just assumes >>>> you're >>>> using all the higher layers to run your tests. These days it seems everyone >>>> just wants to write client tests that assume you're using autoserv, or even >>>> assumes you're using a full scheduler setup. >>>> >>>> -- John >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Darin Petkov <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 2:43 PM, John Admanski >>>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> This should probably use %r instead of %s. In practice I think >>>>>> repr(args) and str(args) will end up being the same, but in principle >>>>>> repr >>>>>> is supposed to be the inverse of eval so it's the more correct choice of >>>>>> formatting. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Good point. Updated the patch. PTAL. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Darin Petkov <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> A simple patch to propagate user args (autoserv -a/--args) to the >>>>>>> client-side control file. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ Autotest mailing list [email protected] http://test.kernel.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/autotest
