On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 02:46:30PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 17/06/2014 14:21, Andrew Jones ha scritto:
> >would look better as
> >
> >report(msg1, cond1) -> FAIL
> >report_skip(msg2, !cond1, cond1 && cond2) -> SKIP
> >report_skip(msg3, !cond1, cond1 && cond3) -> SKIP
>
> I think a lot of the time there is other code before the report that you
> want to skip. Is anything more a "report_skip(msg1);" (that print a SKIP
> message) that useful? So you can do
>
> if (!(msr & 0x1000) {
> report_skip("Frob bit 12 of msr");
This is enough to output "msg: SKIP" in a format consistent with PASS
and FAIL. However, it's not necessarily enough to output the test case
too. E.g. we'd need
if (cond1) {
/* do stuff to prepare for report conditions */
report("msg1", cond2);
report("msg2", cond3);
} else {
report_skip("msg1");
report_skip("msg2");
}
It'd be nice to avoid the message redundancy in the cases that we're
able to. However, ...
> return;
> }
>
> Unless what you really want is not a SKIP but an expected failure, then I
...yes, I was thinking along the lines of an 'expected failure' report,
not the above issue, and 'XFAIL' does convey that idea better.
> agree with the idea. Something like
>
> report_xfail(msg2, cond1, cond2)
>
> would print:
>
> PASS if cond1 = false, cond2 = true
> FAIL if cond1 = false, cond2 = false
> XPASS if cond1 = true, cond2 = true
> XFAIL if cond1 = true, cond2 = false
>
> An XPASS would ultimately exit with status 1, just like a FAIL.
Yeah, XPASS is good. report_skip would make PASS ambiguous. Not good.
I'll drop the idea of outputting SKIP, switch to report_xfail, and send
a v2.
Thanks,
drew
>
> Paolo
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
