On Mon, 2019-09-30 at 15:44 +0200, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 30.09.19 15:40, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > On Mon, 2019-09-30 at 14:43 +0200, Max Reitz wrote:
> > > On 29.09.19 18:31, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2019-09-27 at 11:42 +0200, Max Reitz wrote:
> > > > > This test can run just fine with other values for refcount_bits, so we
> > > > > should filter the value from qcow2.py's dump-header.
> > > > >
> > > > > (036 currently ignores user-specified image options, but that will be
> > > > > fixed in the next patch.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <mre...@redhat.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > tests/qemu-iotests/036 | 9 ++++++---
> > > > > tests/qemu-iotests/036.out | 6 +++---
> > > > > 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/tests/qemu-iotests/036 b/tests/qemu-iotests/036
> > > > > index f06ff67408..69d0f9f903 100755
> > > > > --- a/tests/qemu-iotests/036
> > > > > +++ b/tests/qemu-iotests/036
> > > > > @@ -55,7 +55,8 @@ $PYTHON qcow2.py "$TEST_IMG" set-feature-bit
> > > > > incompatible 63
> > > > >
> > > > > # Without feature table
> > > > > $PYTHON qcow2.py "$TEST_IMG" del-header-ext 0x6803f857
> > > > > -$PYTHON qcow2.py "$TEST_IMG" dump-header
> > > > > +$PYTHON qcow2.py "$TEST_IMG" dump-header \
> > > > > + | sed -e 's/^\(refcount_order\s*\).*/\1(filtered)/'
> > > > > _img_info
> > > > >
> > > > > # With feature table containing bit 63
> > > > > @@ -103,14 +104,16 @@ echo === Create image with unknown autoclear
> > > > > feature bit ===
> > > > > echo
> > > > > _make_test_img 64M
> > > > > $PYTHON qcow2.py "$TEST_IMG" set-feature-bit autoclear 63
> > > > > -$PYTHON qcow2.py "$TEST_IMG" dump-header
> > > > > +$PYTHON qcow2.py "$TEST_IMG" dump-header \
> > > > > + | sed -e 's/^\(refcount_order\s*\).*/\1(filtered)/'
> > > > >
> > > > > echo
> > > > > echo === Repair image ===
> > > > > echo
> > > > > _check_test_img -r all
> > > > >
> > > > > -$PYTHON qcow2.py "$TEST_IMG" dump-header
> > > > > +$PYTHON qcow2.py "$TEST_IMG" dump-header \
> > > > > + | sed -e 's/^\(refcount_order\s*\).*/\1(filtered)/'
> > > > >
> > > > > # success, all done
> > > > > echo "*** done"
> > > > > diff --git a/tests/qemu-iotests/036.out b/tests/qemu-iotests/036.out
> > > > > index e489b44386..998c2a8a35 100644
> > > > > --- a/tests/qemu-iotests/036.out
> > > > > +++ b/tests/qemu-iotests/036.out
> > > > > @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ snapshot_offset 0x0
> > > > > incompatible_features 0x8000000000000000
> > > > > compatible_features 0x0
> > > > > autoclear_features 0x0
> > > > > -refcount_order 4
> > > > > +refcount_order (filtered)
> > > > > header_length 104
> > > > >
> > > > > qemu-img: Could not open 'TEST_DIR/t.IMGFMT': Unsupported IMGFMT
> > > > > feature(s): Unknown incompatible feature: 8000000000000000
> > > > > @@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ snapshot_offset 0x0
> > > > > incompatible_features 0x0
> > > > > compatible_features 0x0
> > > > > autoclear_features 0x8000000000000000
> > > > > -refcount_order 4
> > > > > +refcount_order (filtered)
> > > > > header_length 104
> > > > >
> > > > > Header extension:
> > > > > @@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ snapshot_offset 0x0
> > > > > incompatible_features 0x0
> > > > > compatible_features 0x0
> > > > > autoclear_features 0x0
> > > > > -refcount_order 4
> > > > > +refcount_order (filtered)
> > > > > header_length 104
> > > > >
> > > > > Header extension:
> > > >
> > > > Minor notes:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Maybe put the sed command into a function to avoid duplication?
> > >
> > > Hm, maybe, but that would increase the LoC, so I’m not sure whether it
> > > really would be a simplification.
> >
> > IMHO, in my opinion, regardless of LOC, duplicated code is almost always
> > bad. Common functions are mostly for the next guy that will be able to use
> > them instead of searching through code to see how this is done there and
> > there.
>
> In my experience, people write tests without scanning common.filter for
> whether anyone has written the same code already. See the
> _filter_qemu_img_check example in this series.
Fair enough, but this can change.
>
> > >
> > > > 2. As I understand the test, it only checks the feature bits.
> > > > So maybe instead of blacklisting some of the values, white list
> > > > only the feature bits in the output?
> > >
> > > Hm. Seems reasonable, but then again I’d prefer a minimal change, and
> > > changing it to a whitelist would be more change...
> >
> > I don't think this is bad, again in my eyes, the code should be as friendly
> > as possible for the next guy that will have to change it, so adding
> > some more extra changes don't seem a problem to me.
>
> In my eyes tests aren’t code.
And yet, writing tests is commonly known as a task
that developers don't really like to do, so making that even a tiniest bit
easier, is a good thing IMHO,
Anyway I won't argue about this too much, and on top of this,
I think that this patch series does *lot* of improvements that
do make it easier to write the tests.
Thanks for that, and I might also someday in the future do
some refactoring for the iotests. The thing that I hate the
most is that the tests don't have names....
Best regards,
Maxim Levitsky
