Hi Andreas, Le Sunday 02 February 2014 à 23:42 +0100, Andreas Grünbacher a écrit : > just a heads up, I wrote a utility called exxe which could eventually > replace the run script if a few more features are added. It's written > in C, and relatively simple and fast. Maybe we want to switch to that > at some point. > > http://git.drbd.org/gitweb.cgi?p=exxe.git > > I originally wrote this for the drbd test suite where we need to run > various commands on various cluster nodes, send them stdin input, and > capture their stdout, stderr, and exit status. The test suite keeps an > ssh connection open to each cluster node; it uses this connection for > running commands on the cluster node.
Seems a bit overkill, as remote execution of commands is not something we need to test in quilt. > The test suite itself (http://git.drbd.org/gitweb.cgi?p=drbd-test.git) > is a bit of a shell hell, but there are enough test cases in exxe > itself to easily understand how exxe works without having to > understand the drbd test suite. I can see that the test case format is different from what we use in quilt right now. So we'd have to rewrite all 52 test cases. We'd need a really good reason for that. I can only think of two: * Performance, if exxe is much faster than what we have. Do you have benchmarks? Admittedly running the test suite is the longest part of building quilt at the moment, for example it takes 31 seconds on my laptop while ./configure && make takes only 1.25 second. OTOH since I made it possible to run multiple tests in parallel, the test suite completes in 10 seconds on my laptop. That's still very fast compared to building most other packages. So performance isn't really an issue at the moment. Me trying to optimize the test script was more of a theoretical exercise (or a proof of my inability to properly prioritize my efforts and spend my time on things that really matter...) In the end I think I made the code rather cleaner than significantly faster. * Not having to maintain the tester tool ourselves and avoiding divergences such as we have between quilt and acl right now, as discussed somewhere else in this thread. However this specific goal could be reached in a variety of other ways, including moving the script we currently use to its own mini-project, or switching to one of the many other existing test harness projects out there. So I am really in no hurry changing the test suite tool in quilt. -- Jean Delvare Suse L3 Support _______________________________________________ Quilt-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/quilt-dev
