will do. thanks for going over this John.
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Darin Petkov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 11:24 AM, John Admanski <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> 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. > > Thanks much for the prompt review and feedback. > Martin, > Please apply both patches when you get a chance. > Thanks, > Darin > >> >> -- 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
