[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for-2.6?] qemu-iotests: iotests: fa
From: |
Kevin Wolf |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for-2.6?] qemu-iotests: iotests: fail hard if not run via "check" |
Date: |
Wed, 20 Apr 2016 10:38:28 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
Am 19.04.2016 um 18:49 hat Sascha Silbe geschrieben:
> Dear Markus,
>
> Markus Armbruster <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Say you had an accurate way to find out whether we're running under
> > "check". You could then reject any attempt to run the test directly.
> > I'd oppose that.
> >
> > It's okay to have test wrapper scripts to configure the tests just so.
> > It's okay to tell people to use them. But "you can't do that, Dave" is
> > not okay. [...]
>
> AFAICT the environment in which the individual test cases run isn't
> well-defined. Currently it's indirectly defined by whatever "check"
> does.
>
> The goal of the patch is to catch unwary developers invoking the tests
> directly from the command line, providing them with useful advice. If
> somebody wants to write another test runner (in place of "check"), it's
> their responsibility to set up the environment appropriately. (They
> could even set an environment variable "I_AM_CHECK=yes" if that's part
> of the environment the tests expect).
>
> I'd be perfectly fine with defining the environment more clearly and
> possibly extending the implementation to allow individual test cases to
> be invoked directly (without a test runner like "check"). But that would
> be 2.7 material.
At this point in the 2.6 release cycle, this series is 2.7 material
anyway. It's critical fixes only now.
Kevin
- Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH for-2.6?] qemu-iotests: iotests: fail hard if not run via "check", (continued)
Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for-2.6?] qemu-iotests: iotests: fail hard if not run via "check", Markus Armbruster, 2016/04/18
[Qemu-block] [PATCH for-2.6? v2] qemu-iotests: iotests: fail hard if not run via "check", Sascha Silbe, 2016/04/19