Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/4] iotests: Add @error to wait_until_completed

[Max Reitz]

On 14.09.19 00:53, John Snow wrote:
> 
> 
> On 9/12/19 9:56 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
>> Callers can use this new parameter to expect failure during the
>> completion process.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <address@hidden>
>> ---
>>  tests/qemu-iotests/iotests.py | 18 ++++++++++++------
>>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tests/qemu-iotests/iotests.py b/tests/qemu-iotests/iotests.py
>> index b26271187c..300347c7c8 100644
>> --- a/tests/qemu-iotests/iotests.py
>> +++ b/tests/qemu-iotests/iotests.py
>> @@ -745,15 +745,20 @@ class QMPTestCase(unittest.TestCase):
>>          self.assert_no_active_block_jobs()
>>          return result
>>  
>> -    def wait_until_completed(self, drive='drive0', check_offset=True, 
>> wait=60.0):
>> +    def wait_until_completed(self, drive='drive0', check_offset=True, 
>> wait=60.0,
>> +                             error=None):
>>          '''Wait for a block job to finish, returning the event'''
>>          while True:
>>              for event in self.vm.get_qmp_events(wait=wait):
>>                  if event['event'] == 'BLOCK_JOB_COMPLETED':
>>                      self.assert_qmp(event, 'data/device', drive)
>> -                    self.assert_qmp_absent(event, 'data/error')
>> -                    if check_offset:
>> -                        self.assert_qmp(event, 'data/offset', 
>> event['data']['len'])
>> +                    if error is None:
>> +                        self.assert_qmp_absent(event, 'data/error')
>> +                        if check_offset:
>> +                            self.assert_qmp(event, 'data/offset',
>> +                                            event['data']['len'])
>> +                    else:
>> +                        self.assert_qmp(event, 'data/error', error)
>>                      self.assert_no_active_block_jobs()
>>                      return event
>>                  elif event['event'] == 'JOB_STATUS_CHANGE':
>> @@ -771,7 +776,8 @@ class QMPTestCase(unittest.TestCase):
>>          self.assert_qmp(event, 'data/type', 'mirror')
>>          self.assert_qmp(event, 'data/offset', event['data']['len'])
>>  
>> -    def complete_and_wait(self, drive='drive0', wait_ready=True):
>> +    def complete_and_wait(self, drive='drive0', wait_ready=True,
>> +                          completion_error=None):
>>          '''Complete a block job and wait for it to finish'''
>>          if wait_ready:
>>              self.wait_ready(drive=drive)
>> @@ -779,7 +785,7 @@ class QMPTestCase(unittest.TestCase):
>>          result = self.vm.qmp('block-job-complete', device=drive)
>>          self.assert_qmp(result, 'return', {})
>>  
>> -        event = self.wait_until_completed(drive=drive)
>> +        event = self.wait_until_completed(drive=drive, 
>> error=completion_error)
>>          self.assert_qmp(event, 'data/type', 'mirror')
>>  
>>      def pause_wait(self, job_id='job0'):
>>
> 
> toot toot more optional parameters. lay them at the altar of
> noncommittal python design.
> 
> I completely forget what the difference between unittest.TestCase and
> qtest.QEMUQtestMachine is and why they each have job management methods.
> 
> Well, OK: the VM one is a simple subclass of the general-purpose VM
> machine to add some more useful stuff. the unittest one implements some
> general-purpose behavior with asserts that only work in the unittest world.

Yes.  run_job doesn’t assert anything (well, I could check the returned
error, but that’s it), it’s just based on comparison to the reference
output.  That’s not so useful for unittest-style tests, so it’s better
to use complete_and_wait() etc. there.

> Still,
> 
> It's a little fun that we've got run_job as well as cancel_and_wait,
> wait_until_completed, wait_ready, wait_ready_and_cancel, pause_wait and
> pause_job and they all seem to implement job run-state logic management
> a little differently.

At the end of the day, it’s all just test code.  It doesn’t hurt too
much for it to have duplicated code and be generally messy.

> Probably no bugs there, I bet.

Hm.  The functions are not that complex.

> *cough* Not your fault, anyway, so please take this accolade:
> 
> Reviewed-by: John Snow <address@hidden>

Thanks!

> (it's probably my fault)

I can only imagine by nonassistance of code in danger.

Max

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature