On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 06:19:03PM +0930, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > 在 2024/4/11 18:14, Anand Jain 写道: > > > > > > On 4/11/24 00:26, David Sterba wrote: > >> 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). > > > > We can do the renaming part in the separate patch. Qu, are > > you sending the revised patch? > > Sure, I can prepare them pretty soon. > > Just to be noticed, if we really determine to rename > `_run_btrfs_util_prog`, it would be pretty large as there are tons of > such calls still there. > > And I really hope we can get a good naming before doing the conversion. > Updating it again and again for a different name may not be a good use > of time. > > My candidate is `_btrfs` or `_run_btrfs`. Any good candidates? I'd use the one with prefix.
