On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 05:32:32PM -0300, Carlos Maiolino wrote: > Hi, working on xfstests after its new directory structures I noticed we should > use now something like: > > ./check xfs/<test> > > to run some tests, IMHO this is not intuitive and I was working on a patch to > make us able to use something just like the old way: > > ./check <test> What do you do with duplicate test names? The main reason that the interface changed was to keep the changes to the test harness down to a minimum as it was just moving tests around. All that code needs to be revisited to support arbitrary test names, so there wasn't much point in doing a massive rework only to have to rework it again... But the question is: is the old way a sane way to specify tests in the brave new world? I'd much prefer that test specification is explict, and doesn't implicitly select tests. Indeed, if it implicitly selects tests (e.g. when there are duplicates it runs all duplicates) then we still need a method for running specific tests..... Note that what you are seeing is how the $have_test_arg code processes the test name. It requires that you tell it the directory so it knows where to look for the specific test. You could make it look in each test directory like get_group_list()/get_all_tests() do so we don't need to specify a directory. > But, since xfstests is becoming more generalist than xfs specific, I wonder if > we should still keep xfs as default. The default is whatever filesystem is on the $TEST_DEV, and I don't see that changing. i.e. what we set FSTYP to is the default. Note that get_group_list() and get_all_tests() specifically include the FSTYP directory, Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
