On 2017/11/21 10:30, Theodore Ts'o Wrote: > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 03:42:52PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: >>> I found that e2fsprogs put tests in the e2fsprogs repository, so I write it >>> and put in the same place. Now I notice that all xfs test cases put together >>> in xfstests, so It's also a good choice, not sure which one is better. How >>> about Eryu's opinion ? >> >> IMHO, xfstests is a good place for fsck.overlay tests, but I don't think >> that's something conflicting with in-repo unit tests, some tests are >> just not suitable for xfstests. How about writing tests in xfstests by >> default and only keeping them in repository, if there's any, if the >> tests are not fitting in xfstests well? > > Zhangyi, > > Here's my opinion, for whatever it's worth. Things which don't > require root and which run fairly quickly (ideally less than 10 > seconds; preferably under 5), are better to do in the fsck git > repository. That's because it's much faster to run "make ; make > check". > > Tests are most effective when they are frequently run and used. You > may be more willing to live an exciting life, but I'm not particularly > fond of running "make install" of a development branch of e2fsprogs > just to run tests. So that means I have to build e2fsprogs packages, > rebuild the test appliance VM, and then run tests --- which takes > *easily* 10x more time. > > The place where it makes a lot of sense to put fsck and resize tests > into xfstests is where it requires root, or if the tests have a long > run-time. For similar reasons of not wanting to live an exciting life > when it comes to my development environment, I don't like running > "make check" as repository which can be updated by others as root. So > if a file system needs to be mounted (for example, to set up a test), > or if you want to test on-line resize, then that's an argument for > doing it in xfstests. > > For overlayfs, it might be that you need to do a lot of mount and > unmount operations as root in order to run your tests. So maybe > that's a good argument to run it under xfstests. Unless you can make > small, pre-prepared file system images that you can untar and then > point at your overlayfsck to check. > > As the Perl developers would say, "there's more than one way to do things". :-) > Hi Ted, Thanks for your explain and advice, writing tests in xfstests feels better. I will consider it and split tests from fsck source code to put them(maybe part of) into xfstests. Thanks, Yi. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-unionfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
