On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 09:40:54AM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 2:43 AM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > From: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > The 'other' group is vaguely defined at best -- other than what? It's > > not clear what tests belong in this group, and it has become a dumping > > ground for random stuff that are classified in other groups. Don't let > > people create new other group tests. > > > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > new | 7 +++++-- > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/new b/new > > index 6b7dc5d4..5cf96c50 100755 > > --- a/new > > +++ b/new > > @@ -96,9 +96,9 @@ then > > > > while true > > do > > - echo -n "Add to group(s) [other] (separate by space, ? for list): " > > + echo -n "Add to group(s) [auto] (separate by space, ? for list): " > > read ans > > - [ -z "$ans" ] && ans=other > > + [ -z "$ans" ] && ans=auto > > if [ "X$ans" = "X?" ] > > then > > echo $(group_names) > > @@ -109,6 +109,9 @@ then > > echo "Invalid characters in group(s): $inval" > > echo "Only lower cases, digits and underscore are allowed in groups, separated by space" > > continue > > + elif echo "$ans" | grep -q -w "other"; then > > + echo "Do not add more tests to group \"other\"." > > + continue > > Should we also filter out "other" from group_names(), so it is not listed > for "?"? No; there are drawbacks to that, as you point out below. > With this patch, "other" does not emit a warning when passed in as a script > command line argument. Done. > If we filter "other" from group_names(), then the warning in "expert mode" > will be a bit confusing (group "other" not defined in documentation). I will filter it out in the specific case case that the interactive user specified "?" to list the groups. > Also, it is not clear to me if this is intentional behavior that interactive > mode allows non-dcumented groups (with valid chars validation) and > expert mode does not allow non-documented groups? Probably not. > It may be simpler to use the same helper in both modes (is_group_valid) > to emit the correct warning and either proceed (expert mode) or get > back to prompt (interactive mode). This is getting farther afield from where I wanted this thing to go. Very well, I'll split the ./new cleanups into its own series, but TBH I've gotten tired of people asking for more and more cleanups out of me. --D > Thanks, > Amir.
