On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 10:36:29AM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 24.03.2020 um 08:41 hat Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy geschrieben:
> > When sending iotests to upstream or do patch porting from one branch
> > to another we very often have to resolve conflicts in group file, as
> > many absolutely independent features are intersecting by this file.
> > These conflicts are simple, but imagine how much time we all have
> > already spent on resolving them? Let's finally get rid of group file.
> > 
> > This patch transposes group info: instead of collecting it in one file,
> > let each test define its groups by itself.
> > 
> > Several steps are done to achive it:
> > 
> > 1. Define groups in test files automatically:
> > 
> >     grep '^[0-9]\{3\} ' group | while read line; do
> >         file=$(awk '{print $1}' <<< "$line");
> >         groups=$(sed -e 's/^... //' <<< "$line");
> >         awk "NR==2{print \"# group: $groups\"}1" $file > tmp;
> >         cat tmp > $file;
> >     done
> > 
> > 2. Copy groups documentation into docs/devel/testing.rst, which already
> >    has a section about iotests.
> > 
> > 3. Modify check script to work without group file.
> > 
> >    Here is a logic change: before, even if test do not belong to any
> >    group (only iotest 142 currently) it should be defined in group
> >    file. Now, test is not forced to define any group. Instead check
> >    considers all files with names matching [0-9][0-9][0-9] as tests.
> 
> This has both a positive and a negative effect: Now you don't have to
> modify another file when you add a new test, but it will be picked up
> automatically. However, if you want to disable a test, you could
> previously just remove it from groups (or comment it out), and now you
> have to delete the test instead.
> 
> Downstream, I think we still disable a few tests because we're compiling
> out features that are required for some tests to pass, and deleting the
> test cases completely would probably move conflicts just to a different
> place.
> 
> So I think we need a method to distuingish an enabled test that is in no
> group from a disabled test.


Can we just have a file "blacklist.local" (which doesn't exist by default)
where you list tests to skip locally ?

Or a "group.local" such that any info in this group.local file will replace
the default info extracted from the test file ?

> >    check script is also refactored to make it simple to do next cool
> >    thing about iotests: allow meaningful names for test-case files.
> 
> This one would also require us to be able to distinguish test case files
> from arbitrary other files.

A test-XXXXXXXXX.sh or a XXXXXX.test  naming convention ?

> > -#
> > -# test-group association ... one line per test
> > -#
> > -001 rw auto quick
> > -002 rw auto quick
> > -003 rw auto
> > -004 rw auto quick
> > -005 img auto quick
> > -# 006 was removed, do not reuse
> 
> We lose these comments without a replacement. I wonder whether it's
> important or if we can think of another way to make sure that numbers
> aren't reused. (I'm not completely sure any more why we decided that we
> don't want to reuse numbers. Maybe because of backports?)

The key goal of the patch is to avoid conflicts from clashing changes
between branches. To full achieve that goal we need to both avoid
touching the shared groups file, but more than than, we must avoid
creating clashing test filenames.

If we keep using 3-digit filenames then the goal of this patch is
not achieved, as the risk of clashes is still higher. IOW, we must
switch to a more verbose naming convention to increase the entropy
and thus eliminate risk of clashes. If this is done, then the idea
of reserving previously used test names ceases to be something to
worry about.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|


Reply via email to