Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request
All xfstest developers, Thanks again for all your time in submitting and reviewing patches for xfstests. The latest patchset posted here: http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-03/msg00467.html requires all current patches to be re-factored. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thanks --Rich -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 08:23:07AM -0500, Rich Johnston wrote: All xfstest developers, Thanks again for all your time in submitting and reviewing patches for xfstests. The latest patchset posted here: http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-03/msg00467.html requires all current patches to be re-factored. Given that we are now segregating patches into subdirectories, is it correct in the future tests should be named descriptively, instead of using 3 digit NNN numbers (which has been a major pain from a central assignment perspective)? If so, is there a suggested naming convention that is being recommended? Thanks for getting this change merged in!! - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request
On 03/27/2013 08:46 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 08:23:07AM -0500, Rich Johnston wrote: All xfstest developers, Thanks again for all your time in submitting and reviewing patches for xfstests. The latest patchset posted here: http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-03/msg00467.html requires all current patches to be re-factored. Given that we are now segregating patches into subdirectories, is it correct in the future tests should be named descriptively, instead of using 3 digit NNN numbers (which has been a major pain from a central assignment perspective)? Yes If so, is there a suggested naming convention that is being recommended? Thanks for getting this change merged in!! - Ted I suggest: 1. They should also be descriptive of the test rather than a number. 2. All lowercase letters separated by _ i.e. something like tests/$FSTYP/break_my_filesystem Thanks --Rich -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request
What do you think about renaming the existing tests from NNN to NNN-descriptive-name? That way it will be easier for people who are trying to track regressions, since they can easily map from the new more descriptive name to the old test number for comparison purposes (i.e., to see whether a failure is a regression or not, etc.) Would you be open to changes which did this? I'd suggest sending the changes as a shell script to minimize the chances of patch conflicts. It will cause people to need to regenerate their patches, but that means now would be the time to do this, when everyone will need to be fixing up their outstanding changes anyway. :-) - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 03:05:12PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: What do you think about renaming the existing tests from NNN to NNN-descriptive-name? That way it will be easier for people who are trying to track regressions, since they can easily map from the new more descriptive name to the old test number for comparison purposes (i.e., to see whether a failure is a regression or not, etc.) It does seem like a good idea to help people map from descriptive names to their previous numeric file names. But do we want to bake it in to the file names forevermore? Would it be good enough to start the old tests with something like _was_test_nr 45 that spits out the old test number in the log? Just thinking out loud over here. - z -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request
Hey, On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 01:42:17PM -0700, Zach Brown wrote: On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 03:05:12PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: What do you think about renaming the existing tests from NNN to NNN-descriptive-name? That way it will be easier for people who are trying to track regressions, since they can easily map from the new more descriptive name to the old test number for comparison purposes (i.e., to see whether a failure is a regression or not, etc.) It does seem like a good idea to help people map from descriptive names to their previous numeric file names. But do we want to bake it in to the file names forevermore? Would it be good enough to start the old tests with something like _was_test_nr 45 that spits out the old test number in the log? Just thinking out loud over here. Maybe a text file containing the mapping would be sufficient. It's not as if it's going to grow. -Ben -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 03:05:12PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: What do you think about renaming the existing tests from NNN to NNN-descriptive-name? That way it will be easier for people who are trying to track regressions, since they can easily map from the new more descriptive name to the old test number for comparison purposes (i.e., to see whether a failure is a regression or not, etc.) When named test support is done, then we could do this. Would you be open to changes which did this? I'd suggest sending the changes as a shell script to minimize the chances of patch conflicts. It will cause people to need to regenerate their patches, but that means now would be the time to do this, when everyone will need to be fixing up their outstanding changes anyway. :-) There's more than just the rename of the file. group files have to change, there's the possibility that the group list and test list handling will need to be completely rewritten, the way test names are output will need work, the result summaries will need to be reformatted to be legible, etc. So it's not just a case of renaming a file - there's still quite a lot of infrastructure work needed before we can start using names rather then sequence numbers for tests. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 09:46:06AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 08:23:07AM -0500, Rich Johnston wrote: All xfstest developers, Thanks again for all your time in submitting and reviewing patches for xfstests. The latest patchset posted here: http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-03/msg00467.html requires all current patches to be re-factored. Given that we are now segregating patches into subdirectories, is it correct in the future tests should be named descriptively, instead of using 3 digit NNN numbers (which has been a major pain from a central assignment perspective)? Support for named tests have not yet been added. From the check script: SUPPORTED_TESTS=[0-9][0-9][0-9] [0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9] Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 07:54:07AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: Support for named tests have not yet been added. From the check script: SUPPORTED_TESTS=[0-9][0-9][0-9] [0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9] Ah, I thought support for named tests was there. For right now, though, if we have test ext4/123 and btrfs/123, that's OK and they are considered separate tests, right? Or do we still need to keep the numbers unique for now? - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 01:42:17PM -0700, Zach Brown wrote: On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 03:05:12PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: What do you think about renaming the existing tests from NNN to NNN-descriptive-name? That way it will be easier for people who are trying to track regressions, since they can easily map from the new more descriptive name to the old test number for comparison purposes (i.e., to see whether a failure is a regression or not, etc.) It does seem like a good idea to help people map from descriptive names to their previous numeric file names. But do we want to bake it in to the file names forevermore? Would it be good enough to start the old tests with something like _was_test_nr 45 $ cd tests/generic $ ../../lsqa.pl -b 001 Random file copier to produce chains of identical files so the head and the tail can be diff'd at the end of each iteration. Exercises creat, write and unlink for a variety of directory sizes, and checks for data corruption. run [config] config has one line per file with filename and byte size, else use the default one below. $ ../../lsqa.pl -b 005 Test symlinks ELOOP $ Do we even really need to change them? Fix the lsqa.pl script be able to take a directory argument, and just use the script to get the description Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 05:48:04PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 07:54:07AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: Support for named tests have not yet been added. From the check script: SUPPORTED_TESTS=[0-9][0-9][0-9] [0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9] Ah, I thought support for named tests was there. For right now, though, if we have test ext4/123 and btrfs/123, that's OK and they are considered separate tests, right? Or do we still need to keep the numbers unique for now? Test numbers within a subdir are unique. So yes, ext4/123 and btrfs/123 are recognised as different tests. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
