On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 10:08:06PM +0000, Filipe David Manana wrote: > On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 02:05:32AM +0000, Filipe David Borba Manana wrote: > >> This change adds some new tests for btrfs' incremental send feature. > >> These are all related with inverting the parent-child relationship > >> of directories, and cover the cases: > >> > >> * when the new parent didn't get renamed (just moved) > >> * when a child file of the former parent gets renamed too > >> > >> These new cases are fixed by the following btrfs linux kernel patches: > >> > >> * "Btrfs: more send support for parent/child dir relationship inversion" > >> * "Btrfs: fix send dealing with file renames and directory moves" > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Filipe David Borba Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Rather than modifying 030 which will cause it to fail on kernels > > where it previously passed, can you factor out the common code and > > create a new test with the additional coverage? > > > > i.e. the rule of thumb is that once a test is "done" we don't go > > back and modify it in significant ways - we write a new unit test > > that covers the new/extended functionality. Redundancy in unit tests > > is not a bad thing... > > Right. The only reason I did this, instead of a new test file, is that > because the former fix which btrfs/030 relates to is not yet in any > kernel release. Given this fact, what do you think? Ok, so if it already fails for everyone, then I think we'll be fine to modify it like this. "done" is a flexible concept when it comes to unit tests ;) Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
