Hi Zorry, On 11/06/2020 15:03, Zorro Lang wrote: > On Mon, Jun 01, 2020 at 01:55:49PM +1000, Donald Douwsma wrote: >> >> >> On 01/06/2020 10:53, Donald Douwsma wrote: >>> Hi Zorro, >>> >>> On 29/05/2020 18:06, Zorro Lang wrote: >>>> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 01:52:58PM +1000, Donald Douwsma wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>>>> --- a/tests/xfs/group >>>>> +++ b/tests/xfs/group >>>>> @@ -513,3 +513,4 @@ >>>>> 513 auto mount >>>>> 514 auto quick db >>>>> 515 auto quick quota >>>>> +516 repair >>>> >>>> Is there a reason why this case shouldn't be in auto group? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Zorro >>> >>> >>> We could work to wards getting it into auto, I wanted to make sure it >>> was working ok first. > > I just rechecked the mail list, sorry I missed this email long time (CC me will > make sure I won't miss it next time:) Will do, > I think several minutes running time is acceptable to be into auto group, if the > case is stable enough, won't fail unexpected. Ok, I'll submit with it added to the auto group as well. >>> >>> It takes about 2.5 min to run with the current image used by >>> _scratch_populate_cached, by its nature it needs time for the progress >>> code to fire, but that may be ok. >>> >>> It sometimes leaves the delay-test active, I think because I've I used >>> _dmsetup_remove in _cleanup instead of _cleanup_delay because the later >>> unmounts the filesystem, which this test doesnt do, but I'd have to look >>> into this more so it plays well with other tests like the original >>> dmdelay unmount test 311. >> >> Actually it does clean up delay-test correctly (*cough* I may have been >> backgrounding xfs_repair in my xfstests tree while testing something >> else). I have seen it leave delay-test around if terminated with >> ctrl+c, but that seems reasonable if a test is aborted. > > If use a common helper to DO a test, I'd like to use its corresponding > helper to cleanup UNDO it. If there's still something wrong, we can fix the > helpers. > >> >>> I wasn't completely happy with the filter, it only checks that any of the >>> progress messages are printing at least once, which for most can still >>> just match on the end of phase printing, which always worked. Ideally it >>> would check that some of these messages print multiple times. >>> >>> I can work on a V3 if this hasn't merged yet, or a follow up after, thoughts? > > Sure, hope the V3 can improve the output mismatch issue, although the filter is > really boring:) I think boring may be safer if its going into the auto group. I'd like to stick with the boring filter to start with, I dont want to make it too fragile if the image changes. >>> >> >> >
