Re: [PATCH v5 1/5] iotests: remove 'linux' from default supported platforms

[John Snow]

On 9/23/19 9:09 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 18.09.19 01:45, John Snow wrote:
>> verify_platform will check an explicit whitelist and blacklist instead.
>> The default will now be assumed to be allowed to run anywhere.
>>
>> For tests that do not specify their platforms explicitly, this has the 
>> effect of
>> enabling these tests on non-linux platforms. For tests that always specified
>> linux explicitly, there is no change.
>>
>> For Python tests on FreeBSD at least; only seven python tests fail:
>> 045 147 149 169 194 199 211
>>
>> 045 and 149 appear to be misconfigurations,
>> 147 and 194 are the AF_UNIX path too long error,
>> 169 and 199 are bitmap migration bugs, and
>> 211 is a bug that shows up on Linux platforms, too.
>>
>> This is at least good evidence that these tests are not Linux-only. If
>> they aren't suitable for other platforms, they should be disabled on a
>> per-platform basis as appropriate.
>>
>> Therefore, let's switch these on and deal with the failures.
> 
> What exactly do you mean by “deal with the failures”?  Do you have a
> reference to patches that deal with them, or are you or is someone else
> working on them...?
> 
> Apart from that, I am rather hesitant to take a patch through my tree
> that not only may cause test failures on platforms that I will not or
> actually cannot run tests on (like MacOS or Windows), but that actually
> does introduce new failures as you describe.
> 
> Well, at least it doesn’t introduce build failures because it appears
> there is no Python test that’s in the auto group, so I suppose “rather
> hesitant” is not an “I won’t”.
> 

Think of it more like this: The failures were always there, but we hid
them. I'm not "introducing new failures" as such O:-)

I think that I have demonstrated sufficiently that it's not correct to
prohibit python tests from running on other platforms wholesale, so I'd
prefer we don't do that anymore.

Further, iotests on FreeBSD already weren't 100% green, so I'm not
causing a regression in that sense, either.

I'm going to meekly push and ask that we stage this as-is, and when
something bad happens you can remind me that I wanted this and make me
do it.

--js