Hi,
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 01:12:47AM +0200, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> On Mon, 25 May 2020 17:48:34 +0200
> Phil Sutter <phil@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 03:00:27PM +0200, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> > > Add a simple anonymous set including a concatenated range and check
> > > it's inserted correctly. This is roughly based on the existing
> > > 0025_anonymous_set_0 test case.
> >
> > I think this is pretty much redundant to what tests/py/inet/sets.t tests
> > if you simply enable the anonymous set rule I added in commit
> > 64b9aa3803dd1 ("tests/py: Add tests involving concatenated ranges").
>
> Nice, I wasn't aware of that one. Anyway, this isn't really redundant
> as it also checks that sets are reported back correctly (which I
> expected to break, even if it didn't) by comparing with the dump file,
> instead of just checking netlink messages.
>
> So I'd actually suggest that we keep this and I'd send another patch
> (should I repost this series? A separate patch?) to enable the rule you
> added for py tests.
But nft-test.py does check ruleset listing, that's what the optional
third part of a rule line is for. The syntax is roughly:
| <rule>;(fail|ok[;<rule_out>])
It allows us to cover for asymmetric rule listings. A simple example
from any/ct.t is:
| ct mark or 0x23 == 0x11;ok;ct mark | 0x00000023 == 0x00000011
So nft reports mark values with leading zeroes (don't ask me why ;).
Am I missing some extra your test does?
Cheers, Phil
