Re: [PATCH v2 12/22] qemu-iotests/199: fix style

[Eric Blake]

On 2/17/20 9:02 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> Mostly, satisfy pep8 complains.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
> ---
>   tests/qemu-iotests/199 | 13 +++++++------
>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

With none of your series applied, I get:

$ ./check -qcow2 199
...
199      not run    [16:52:34] [16:52:34]                    not 
suitable for this cache mode: writeback
Not run: 199
Passed all 0 iotests
199      fail       [16:53:37] [16:53:37]                    output 
mismatch (see 199.out.bad)
--- /home/eblake/qemu/tests/qemu-iotests/199.out	2020-07-23 
16:48:56.275529368 -0500
+++ /home/eblake/qemu/build/tests/qemu-iotests/199.out.bad	2020-07-23 
16:53:37.728416207 -0500
@@ -1,5 +1,13 @@
-.
+E
+======================================================================
+ERROR: test_postcopy (__main__.TestDirtyBitmapPostcopyMigration)
+----------------------------------------------------------------------
+Traceback (most recent call last):
+  File "199", line 41, in setUp
+    os.mkfifo(fifo)
+FileExistsError: [Errno 17] File exists
+
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Ran 1 tests

-OK
+FAILED (errors=1)
Failures: 199
Failed 1 of 1 iotests

Ah, 'scratch/mig_fifo' was left over from some other aborted run of the 
test. I removed that file (which implies it might be nice if the test 
handled that automatically, instead of making me do it), and tried 
again; now I got the desired:

199      pass       [17:00:34] [17:01:48]  74s
Passed all 1 iotests


After trying to rebase your series, I once again got failures, but that 
could mean I botched the rebase (since quite a few of the code patches 
earlier in the series were non-trivially changed).  If you send a v3 
(which would be really nice!), I'd hoist this and 13/22 first in the 
series, to get to a point where testing 199 works, to then make it 
easier to demonstrate what the rest of the 199 enhancements do in 
relation to the non-iotest patches.  But I like that you separated the 
199 improvements from the code - testing-wise, it's easy to apply the 
iotests patches first, make sure it fails, then apply the code patches, 
and make sure it passes, to prove that the enhanced test now covers what 
the code fixes did.

--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.           +1-919-301-3226
Virtualization:  qemu.org | libvirt.org