On 10/6/21 3:35 PM, Leonard Crestez wrote: > > I counted the [FAIL] or [ OK ] markers but not the output of nettest > itself. I don't know what to look for, I guess I could diff the outputs? > > Shouldn't it be sufficient to compare the exit codes of the nettest client? mistakes happen. The 700+ tests that exist were verified by me when I submitted the script - that each test passes when it should and fails when it should. "FAIL" has many reasons. I tried to have separate exit codes for nettest.c to capture the timeouts vs ECONNREFUSED, etc., but I could easily have made a mistake. scanning the output is the best way. Most of the 'supposed to fail' tests have a HINT saying why it should fail. > > The output is also modified by a previous change to not capture server > output separately and instead let it be combined with that of the > client. That change is required for this one, doing out=$(nettest -k) > does not return on fork unless the pipe is also closed. > > I did not look at your change, mine is relatively minimal because it > only changes who decide when the server goes into the background: the > shell script or the server itself. This makes it work very easily even > for tests with multiple server instances. The logging issue is why I went with 1 binary do both server and client after nettest.c got support for changing namespaces.
