Re: [PATCH] iotests: drop group file

[Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy]

24.03.2020 12:36, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 24.03.2020 um 08:41 hat Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy geschrieben:
> > When sending iotests to upstream or do patch porting from one branch
> > to another we very often have to resolve conflicts in group file, as
> > many absolutely independent features are intersecting by this file.
> > These conflicts are simple, but imagine how much time we all have
> > already spent on resolving them? Let's finally get rid of group file.
> >
> > This patch transposes group info: instead of collecting it in one file,
> > let each test define its groups by itself.
> >
> > Several steps are done to achive it:
> >
> > 1. Define groups in test files automatically:
> >
> >      grep '^[0-9]\{3\} ' group | while read line; do
> >          file=$(awk '{print $1}' <<< "$line");
> >          groups=$(sed -e 's/^... //' <<< "$line");
> >          awk "NR==2{print \"# group: $groups\"}1" $file > tmp;
> >          cat tmp > $file;
> >      done
> >
> > 2. Copy groups documentation into docs/devel/testing.rst, which already
> >     has a section about iotests.
> >
> > 3. Modify check script to work without group file.
> >
> >     Here is a logic change: before, even if test do not belong to any
> >     group (only iotest 142 currently) it should be defined in group
> >     file. Now, test is not forced to define any group. Instead check
> >     considers all files with names matching [0-9][0-9][0-9] as tests.
>
> This has both a positive and a negative effect: Now you don't have to
> modify another file when you add a new test, but it will be picked up
> automatically. However, if you want to disable a test, you could
> previously just remove it from groups (or comment it out), and now you
> have to delete the test instead.

Hmm. Probably, you could add it to group "disabled", and run check -x disabled.

> Downstream, I think we still disable a few tests because we're compiling
> out features that are required for some tests to pass, and deleting the
> test cases completely would probably move conflicts just to a different
> place.

I came to fixing all test in downstream, correctly skipping test-cases which
needs compiled-out feature. We don't comment out tests in group, all tests
should pass or be correctly skipped by check.

> So I think we need a method to distuingish an enabled test that is in no
> group from a disabled test.

What about "disabled" group?

> >     check script is also refactored to make it simple to do next cool
> >     thing about iotests: allow meaningful names for test-case files.
>
> This one would also require us to be able to distinguish test case files
> from arbitrary other files.

I think, something like "all files started with 'test-' prefix"

> > -#
> > -# test-group association ... one line per test
> > -#
> > -001 rw auto quick
> > -002 rw auto quick
> > -003 rw auto
> > -004 rw auto quick
> > -005 img auto quick
> > -# 006 was removed, do not reuse
>
> We lose these comments without a replacement. I wonder whether it's
> important or if we can think of another way to make sure that numbers
> aren't reused. (I'm not completely sure any more why we decided that we
> don't want to reuse numbers. Maybe because of backports?)

Hmm.. Okay, if we had this test in past, than drop, than reuse number for the
another test, we possibly may break bisecting.

I can add notes about it into documentation (nobody will read it). Anyway, I
don't think it is too bad.

And if we move to textual file-names for tests, we will not reuse old removed
numbers anyway.

--
Best regards,
Vladimir