On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 10:37:00AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 02:54:59PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:18:55PM +0200, Jan Tulak wrote: > > > Because we recently changed how mkfs behaves when it gets incorrect/invalid > > > values, update the expected output to reflect the current status. > > > However, keep also compatibility with the old version. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jan Tulak <jtulak@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > CHANGE: added compatibility for the old xfsprogs. > > > > Sorry for the late response, because I was lost on this :) > > > > Hi Dave - what's the rule/policy of maintaining the backword > > compatibility in fstests? > > We try to ensure that tests that work/pass on old versions of > utilities continue to do so, even as the newer code changes. If the > new code changes too much, then we can either stop running the test > on older code, or we fork the test for the new code.... Thanks Dave for the clarification! > > > I know that efforts have been made to make > > sure new changes don't break old binaries, but is that a must or a > > best-to-have? And what do you think about the xfsprogs version > > comparing? (I'm OK with it :-)) > > We've tried to avoid using version numbers for comparisons, because > that becomes a downward spiral into a mess. Instead, we have > gone down the path of testing for supported features in binaries and > filesystems, not checking version numbers. i.e. we don't care about > the version number - we care about the feature that the binary > provides. Those checks are self documenting - the test tells use > what it requires which something that version number checks do not > explain at all. Makes sense. > > In this case, we have a change in a binary that turns warnings into > errors or issues errors rather than silently ignores what the user > asked for and uses defaults. We already filter out anything relevant > from the result to support all the changes in binary output since > the test was introduced, so we really can't tell if the value > substitution behaviour has changed anymore. IOWs, this test really > isn't serving much purpose as a regression test anymore. > > From that perspective, I'd say we either remove it or we stop trying > to update it further by adding a new requires check for an old mkfs > binary that silently accepts invalid log stripe unit sizes. i.e. > don't add version number checks, add a feature check so that it only > runs on old mkfs binaries but not new ones. e.g. > _require_mkfs_accept_invalid_log_sunit() This looks good to me. Hi Jan - Can you please send an updated version as Dave suggested above? And I think the input-validation test could be updated as well to make it only run on newer mkfs. Thanks a lot! Eryu -- 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
