On Mon Jun 3, 2024 at 4:47 PM AEST, Andrew Jones wrote: > On Sun, Jun 02, 2024 at 10:25:56PM GMT, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > > Document the special groups, check path restrictions, and a small fix > > for check option syntax. > > > > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > docs/unittests.txt | 11 ++++++++--- > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/docs/unittests.txt b/docs/unittests.txt > > index 6ff9872cf..509c529d7 100644 > > --- a/docs/unittests.txt > > +++ b/docs/unittests.txt > > @@ -69,8 +69,11 @@ groups > > groups = <group_name1> <group_name2> ... > > > > Used to group the test cases for the `run_tests.sh -g ...` run group > > -option. Adding a test to the nodefault group will cause it to not be > > -run by default. > > +option. The group name is arbitrary, except for these special groups: > > +- Tests in the "nodefault" group are not run by default (with no -g option). > > +- Tests in the "migration" group are run with the migration harness and > > + expects the test to make migrate_*() calls. > > expect make migrate_*() calls. Not sure if I follow you, but the grammar does sound a bit off now that I read it back. Is this better? "... are run with the migration harness and are expected to make migrate_*() calls." or "... are run with the migration harness, which expects them to make migrate_*() calls." > > > +- Tests in the "panic" group expect QEMU to enter the GUEST_PANICKED state. > > > > accel > > ----- > > @@ -89,8 +92,10 @@ Optional timeout in seconds, after which the test will be killed and fail. > > > > check > > ----- > > -check = <path>=<<value> > > +check = <path>=<value> > > > > Check a file for a particular value before running a test. The check line > > can contain multiple files to check separated by a space, but each check > > parameter needs to be of the form <path>=<value> > > + > > +The path and value can not contain space, =, or shell wildcard characters. > > cannot Huh, seems that is the more usual and formal form. I dind't know that. Thanks, Nick > > Otherwise, > > Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <andrew.jones@xxxxxxxxx> > > Thanks, > drew
