On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Jan Tulak <jtulak@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Jan Tulak <jtulak@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 5:45 AM, Eryu Guan <eguan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 11:10:59AM +0200, Jan Tulak wrote: >>> > Because we recently changed how mkfs behaves when it gets >>> > incorrect/invalid >>> > values, update the expected output to reflect the change. >>> >>> This will break test with old-behavior xfsprogs. But I'm not sure what >>> the best solution is.. >> >> >> Hmm, well, an "if version > something" could work, together with testing the >> changed text directly in the test and making the correct output quiet. >> >> I can add something like that to xfstests and make it a function >> (has_mkfs_old_input_format) for easier use in the tests, but... It seems >> that only this single test is broken by the change, and I don't know if we >> want this backward compatibility in future tests. >> >> The only case when I see a usage would be finding a bug and then using the >> test to bisect the commit, while going over the change boundary. And will >> the persons doing this remember that there is a check for this? Or will they >> vaguely remember that there was some change and just look for the version >> and make their own "if version"? >> >> I would like a centralised solution, but I'm really afraid that it would be >> of no use. And moving the output text into the test is the only way I can >> think of for this specific test. >> >> >>> >>> >>> And it seems that generic/054 and generic/055 are failing because of the >>> same reason, if so, fix them together? >> >> >> These two tests should be fixed by the -l su minval patch, so it is just >> this one. >> > > Mmm, I spent some time on this but did not figure out any nice > solution. Or... I found one, but I'm not sure how you will like it. > > Making the test to comply both versions is difficult because it is not > just the error message that differs, but also that this run is now > invalid: > > # test log stripe greater than LR size > --- mkfs=-l version=2,su=266240 --- > > It differs also in what should fail. So rather than making some > complicated logic, I got the idea to make a duplicity of this test. > One will run with old version and skipped on the new, the other vice > versa. Naming can utilize the text suffixes, so we would have xfs/096 > and xfs/096-old-mkfs-inputs. > > It is not ideal, but looks better than some in-test filtering... What > do you think? > Just a correction, the new test name would be something like XXX-old-mkfs-inputs-096, the sequential number has to be unique. Thanks, Jan -- Jan Tulak jtulak@xxxxxxxxxx / jan@xxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
