On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 03:18:49PM +0930, Qu Wenruo wrote: > >> What past discussions favored does not seem to satisfy our needs and as > >> btrfs-progs are evolving we're hitting random test breakage just because > >> some message has changed. The testsuite should verify what matters, ie. > >> return code, state of the filesystem etc, not exact command output. > >> There's high correlation between output and correctness, yes, but this > >> is too fragile. > > > > Agreed. So, why don't we use `_run_btrfs_util_prog subvolume > > snapshot`, which makes it consistent with the rest of the test cases, > > and also remove the golden output for this command? > > For `_run_btrfs_util_prog`, the only thing I do not like is the name itself. > > I also do not like how fstests always go $BTRFS_UTIL_PROG neither, > however I understand it's there to make sure we do not got weird bash > function name like "btrfs()" overriding the real "btrfs". > > If we can make the name shorter like `_btrfs` or something like it, I'm > totally fine with that, and would be happy to move to the new interface. > > In fact, `_run_btrfs_util_prog` is pretty helpful to generate a debug > friendly seqres.full, which is another good point. I did not realize the _run_btrfs_util_prog helper was there and actually the run_check as well. I vaguely remember this from many years ago and this somehow landed in btrfs-progs testsuite but fstests was against it. Using such helpers sounds like a plan to me (with renames etc).
