On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 04:36:16PM -0300, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > On 06/06/2018 04:24 PM, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 11:45:03AM -0300, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > > [... something about config files ...] > >>> And after that, the following would run all "console" tests: > >>> > >>> avocado run -t console > >>> > >>> How does this sound? > >> > >> For my use cases this doesn't worry me, I'll let Eduardo/Fam opine about > >> use_test_dir_when_no_references_given. > > > > Well, I can't give an opinion because I couldn't understand > > what's the final goal here. > > You cut too much, the relevant part is: > > On 05/30/2018 10:06 PM, Cleber Rosa wrote: > > But at the same, there are security implications: `list` won't > > load/execute any test code (different from, say, standard Python > > unittests), while "run" obviously will. So "avocado run" may end up > > running what users don't want if a malicious user controls > > "$avocado_datadir_paths_test_dir".
The final goal still isn't clear to me. Why would somebody want to use $avocado_datadir_paths_test_dir instead of just specifying "." in the command-line? > > > > > What exactly is missing in the current solution? Why > > "avocado run -t console ." wouldn't work? > > It doesn't work in out-of-tree builds, I have to use the full path: > > >> build_dir$ avocado run > /full/path/to/sources/qemu/tests/acceptance/boot_linux_console.py Isn't the symlink you suggested a better solution than requiring the user to edit a config file? -- Eduardo