Btrfs devel - Mar 2013 - Announce re-factor all current xfstests patches request

All xfstest developers,

Thanks again for all your time in submitting and reviewing patches for 
xfstests.  The latest patchset posted here:

http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-03/msg00467.html

requires all current patches to be re-factored. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Thanks
--Rich
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs"
in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 08:23:07AM -0500, Rich Johnston
wrote:
> All xfstest developers,
> 
> Thanks again for all your time in submitting and reviewing patches
> for xfstests.  The latest patchset posted here:
> 
> http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-03/msg00467.html
> 
> requires all current patches to be re-factored.
Given that we are now segregating patches into subdirectories, is it
correct in the future tests should be named descriptively, instead of
using 3 digit NNN numbers (which has been a major pain from a central
assignment perspective)?

If so, is there a suggested naming convention that is being recommended?

Thanks for getting this change merged in!!

					- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4"
in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

On 03/27/2013 08:46 AM, Theodore Ts''o wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 08:23:07AM -0500, Rich Johnston wrote:
>> All xfstest developers,
>>
>> Thanks again for all your time in submitting and reviewing patches
>> for xfstests.  The latest patchset posted here:
>>
>> http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-03/msg00467.html
>>
>> requires all current patches to be re-factored.
>
> Given that we are now segregating patches into subdirectories, is it
> correct in the future tests should be named descriptively, instead of
> using 3 digit NNN numbers (which has been a major pain from a central
> assignment perspective)?
Yes
>
> If so, is there a suggested naming convention that is being recommended?
>
> Thanks for getting this change merged in!!
>
> 					- Ted
>
I suggest:

1. They should also be descriptive of the test rather than a number.
2. All lowercase letters separated by _

i.e.
something like
tests/$FSTYP/break_my_filesystem

Thanks
--Rich


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs"
in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

What do you think about renaming the existing tests from NNN to
NNN-descriptive-name?  That way it will be easier for people who are
trying to track regressions, since they can easily map from the new
more descriptive name to the old test number for comparison purposes
(i.e., to see whether a failure is a regression or not, etc.)

Would you be open to changes which did this?  I''d suggest sending the
changes as a shell script to minimize the chances of patch conflicts.
It will cause people to need to regenerate their patches, but that
means now would be the time to do this, when everyone will need to be
fixing up their outstanding changes anyway.  :-)

       	      	      		- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4"
in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 03:05:12PM -0400, Theodore Ts''o
wrote:
> What do you think about renaming the existing tests from NNN to
> NNN-descriptive-name?  That way it will be easier for people who are
> trying to track regressions, since they can easily map from the new
> more descriptive name to the old test number for comparison purposes
> (i.e., to see whether a failure is a regression or not, etc.)
It does seem like a good idea to help people map from descriptive names
to their previous numeric file names.

But do we want to bake it in to the file names forevermore?  Would it be
good enough to start the old tests with something like

_was_test_nr 45

that spits out the old test number in the log?

Just thinking out loud over here.

- z
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4"
in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Hey,

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 01:42:17PM -0700, Zach Brown
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 03:05:12PM -0400, Theodore Ts''o wrote:
> > What do you think about renaming the existing tests from NNN to
> > NNN-descriptive-name?  That way it will be easier for people who are
> > trying to track regressions, since they can easily map from the new
> > more descriptive name to the old test number for comparison purposes
> > (i.e., to see whether a failure is a regression or not, etc.)
> 
> It does seem like a good idea to help people map from descriptive names
> to their previous numeric file names.
> 
> But do we want to bake it in to the file names forevermore?  Would it be
> good enough to start the old tests with something like
> 
> _was_test_nr 45
> 
> that spits out the old test number in the log?
> 
> Just thinking out loud over here.
Maybe a text file containing the mapping would be sufficient.  It''s not
as if
it''s going to grow.

-Ben

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 09:46:06AM -0400, Theodore Ts''o
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 08:23:07AM -0500, Rich Johnston wrote:
> > All xfstest developers,
> > 
> > Thanks again for all your time in submitting and reviewing patches
> > for xfstests.  The latest patchset posted here:
> > 
> > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-03/msg00467.html
> > 
> > requires all current patches to be re-factored.
> 
> Given that we are now segregating patches into subdirectories, is it
> correct in the future tests should be named descriptively, instead of
> using 3 digit NNN numbers (which has been a major pain from a central
> assignment perspective)?
Support for named tests have not yet been added. From the check
script:

SUPPORTED_TESTS="[0-9][0-9][0-9] [0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]"

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4"
in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 03:05:12PM -0400, Theodore Ts''o
wrote:
> What do you think about renaming the existing tests from NNN to
> NNN-descriptive-name?  That way it will be easier for people who are
> trying to track regressions, since they can easily map from the new
> more descriptive name to the old test number for comparison purposes
> (i.e., to see whether a failure is a regression or not, etc.)
When named test support is done, then we could do this.
> Would you be open to changes which did this?  I''d suggest sending
the
> changes as a shell script to minimize the chances of patch conflicts.
> It will cause people to need to regenerate their patches, but that
> means now would be the time to do this, when everyone will need to be
> fixing up their outstanding changes anyway.  :-)
There''s more than just the rename of the file. group files have to
change, there''s the possibility that the group list and test list
handling will need to be completely rewritten, the way test names
are output will need work, the result summaries will need to be
reformatted to be legible, etc.

So it''s not just a case of renaming a file - there''s still
quite a
lot of infrastructure work needed before we can start using names
rather then sequence numbers for tests.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 07:54:07AM +1100, Dave Chinner
wrote:
> 
> Support for named tests have not yet been added. From the check
> script:
> 
> SUPPORTED_TESTS="[0-9][0-9][0-9] [0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]"
Ah, I thought support for named tests was there.  For right now,
though, if we have test ext4/123 and btrfs/123, that''s OK and they are
considered separate tests, right?  Or do we still need to keep the
numbers unique for now?

						- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs"
in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 01:42:17PM -0700, Zach Brown
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 03:05:12PM -0400, Theodore Ts''o wrote:
> > What do you think about renaming the existing tests from NNN to
> > NNN-descriptive-name?  That way it will be easier for people who are
> > trying to track regressions, since they can easily map from the new
> > more descriptive name to the old test number for comparison purposes
> > (i.e., to see whether a failure is a regression or not, etc.)
> 
> It does seem like a good idea to help people map from descriptive names
> to their previous numeric file names.
> 
> But do we want to bake it in to the file names forevermore?  Would it be
> good enough to start the old tests with something like
> 
> _was_test_nr 45
$ cd tests/generic
$ ../../lsqa.pl -b 001
Random file copier to produce chains of identical files so the head
and the tail can be diff''d at the end of each iteration.

Exercises creat, write and unlink for a variety of directory sizes,
and
checks for data corruption.

run [config]

config has one line per file with filename and byte size, else use
the default one below.
$ ../../lsqa.pl -b 005
Test symlinks & ELOOP
$

Do we even really need to change them? Fix the lsqa.pl script be
able to take a directory argument, and just use the script to get
the description....

Cheers,

Dave.

-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4"
in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 05:48:04PM -0400, Theodore Ts''o
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 07:54:07AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > 
> > Support for named tests have not yet been added. From the check
> > script:
> > 
> > SUPPORTED_TESTS="[0-9][0-9][0-9] [0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]"
> 
> Ah, I thought support for named tests was there.  For right now,
> though, if we have test ext4/123 and btrfs/123, that''s OK and they
are
> considered separate tests, right?  Or do we still need to keep the
> numbers unique for now?
Test numbers within a subdir are unique. So yes, ext4/123 and
btrfs/123 are recognised as different tests.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs"
in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html