On 6/30/22 1:26 PM, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> On 6/30/22 11:18 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> On 6/30/22 15:31, Ammar Faizi wrote:
>>> On 6/30/22 9:19 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>> Nobody cared enough to "fix" all tests to use those new codes, most
>>>> of the cases just return what they've got, but whatever. Same with
>>>> stdout vs stderr.
>>>
>>> That error code rule was invented since commit:
>>>
>>> 68103b731c34a9f83c181cb33eb424f46f3dcb94 ("Merge branch
>>> 'exitcode-protocol' of ....")
>>>
>>> Ref: https://github.com/axboe/liburing/pull/621/files
>>>
>>> Thanks to Eli who did it. Eli also fixed all tests. Maybe some are still
>>> missing, but if we find it, better to fix it.
>>
>> Have no idea what you're talking about but I'm having
>> hard time calling 6 returns out of 21 in this file "all".
>
>
> Hi, I should probably clarify the state of affairs...
>
> I submitted a patch series on github 4 days ago which implements those
> new codes. It was merged 2 days ago. This is very new code, so I think
> it's not completely 100% fair to say that no one "cared" enough to use it.
>
> As far as the actual changes and their completion go... take a look at
> the commit messages in the merged patches, specifically take a look at
> commit ed430fbeb33367324a039d9cee0fd504bb91e11a.
>
> """
> tests: migrate some tests to use enum-based exit codes
>
> [...]
>
> A partial migration of existing pass/fail values in test sources is
> included.
> """
>
> You can also take a look at Github's equivalent of a cover letter, in
> which I mentioned that I haven't ported everything, but what I did do is
> still useful because "a) it has to start somewhere, b) it demonstrates
> the basic idea of how to structure things."
>
> As far as I'm concerned, I believe the patch series stands on its own
> merit. I established the framework to use, and that on its own is useful
> and deserves merging, because it means that people can start using it,
> and getting things correct from the beginning when adding new code.
>
> Old code does need to be carefully checked, it's not a simple
> find/replace, but that can be done incrementally, and I'm willing to
> continue work on that myself. I just don't think it has to be all or
> nothing at the time of merging.
>
>
> ...
>
> Also, for the record -- while waiting for the Github patch series to be
> merged, I did continue to convert more code via git commit --fixup= &&
> git rebase -i --autosquash. If it had taken longer to end up being
> merged, I would have ended up converting more tests over, and that would
> have reflected on the current state of git master.
>
> I'm not sad that it got merged when it was, because again, this work can
> be done incrementally and people can take advantage of existing work
> immediately. Jens decided it was ready to merge, and that seems like a
> fine decision to me. If he had asked me to finish porting all the tests
> first, I could have done that too.
And that was why I merged it, too. I think it's a step in the right
direction, and as long as you keep converting tests so we end up in a
cohesive state, then that's all good. I just did a liburing release and
it'll be at least few months before the next one, now is a good time to
shake up things like this.
Thanks for your work so far, looking forward to the next batch!
--
Jens Axboe
