2014-02-05 Jean Delvare <[email protected]>: > 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.
I didn't say it can only do remote command execution, but it can do that as well. I'm thinking of something pretty close to what the run script does today. >> 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. That's really not such a big deal if there are clear advantages. > I can only think of two: > > * Performance, if exxe is much faster than what we have. Do you have > benchmarks? Running tests isn't even supported yet; right now, the utility will only run commands. So of course I don't have any numbers. > 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. I don't have an idea how much of that time is actually spent in quilt; that time wouldn't change with a different test driver. Andreas _______________________________________________ Quilt-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/quilt-dev
