On 17/08/2023 11:19, Josef Bacik wrote: > [...] > In general the concept is fine with me, and the implementation seems reasonable. > > With new features we want fstests to accompany them so we know they work > correctly, and we don't accidentally break them in the future. > > I'd like to see tests that validate all the behaviors you're trying to > accomplish work as advertised, and that all the failure cases do in fact fail > properly. > > Ideally a test that creates a single device fs image and mounts it in multiple > places as would be used in the Steam Deck. > > Then a test that tries to add a device to it, replace, etc. All the cases that > you expect to fail, and validate that they actually fail. > > Then any other corner cases you can think of that I haven't thought of. > > Make sure these new tests skip appropriately if the btrfs-progs support doesn't > exist, I'd likely throw the fstests into our CI before the code is merged to > make sure it's ready to be tested if/when it is merged. > > Thanks, > > Josef > Hi Josef, thanks a lot for your comprehensive response, it was pretty helpful for me. I agree with you, test cases are important indeed and I'll work them, re-submitting a V3 with tests included. Cheers, Guilherme
