On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Eryu Guan <eguan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 11:11:17AM +0200, Jan Tulak wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Eryu Guan <eguan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:26:07AM +0200, Jan Tulak wrote: >> >> The code handling "./check foo/123", when the real test is "foo/123-bar-baz" >> >> was moved at the earliest position, so everything working with the test name or >> >> path will know the full name. Thus, no "123" and "123-bar-baz" mix is possible. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Tulak <jtulak@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > >> > Can you please include more details in the description? It seems not so >> > clear to me what the problem is from the description. >> > >> > If I understand it correctly (after playing around), prior to the patch: >> > [root@dhcp-66-86-11 xfstests]# ./check xfs/999 >> > ... >> > xfs/999 0s ... 0s >> > Ran: xfs/999-test-case >> > Passed all 1 tests >> > >> > After applying the patch: >> > [root@dhcp-66-86-11 xfstests]# ./check xfs/999 >> > ... >> > xfs/999-test-case 0s ... 0s >> > Ran: xfs/999-test-case >> > Passed all 1 tests >> > >> > So the test name is always correct, right? >> > >> >> Yes. Most importantly, this fixes issues around other name-based >> operations, see the new message: >> --- >> The code handling "./check foo/123", when the real test is "foo/123-bar-baz" >> was moved to the earliest position, so everything working with the test name or >> path will know the full name. Thus, no "123" and "123-bar-baz" mix is possible. >> >> An example of this issue is $testname.notrun file. When _notrun "foo" was run >> during ./check foo/$name command, it created $name.notrun. But few lines later, >> it wanted $fullname.notrun. So if you did ./check foo/999, but the file was >> 999-bar-baz, then you got comparing outputs (and most likely a fail) >> instead of a skip. >> >> Another example of this mix is in xfstests output: >> ./check xfs/999 >> [...] >> xfs/999 0s ... 0s >> Ran: xfs/999-test-case >> --- >> >> Do you like it now? And do want it as a new version of the patch? :-) > > This does read better to me, thanks! And seems you're going to send a > new patchset, then please send a new version with updated description. > New version submitted with updated description. 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
