Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> writes: > Am 29.01.2013 14:43, schrieb Markus Armbruster: >>> +echo "=== Check correct interpretation of suffixes for image size ===" >>> +echo >>> +sizes="1024 1024b 1k 1K 1M 1G 1T " >>> +sizes+="1024.0 1024.0b 1.5k 1.5K 1.5M 1.5G 1.5T" >>> + >>> +echo "== 1. Traditional size parameter ==" >>> +echo >>> +for s in $sizes; do >>> + test_qemu_img create -f $IMGFMT $TEST_IMG $s >>> +done >> >> Do we have a qemu-option.c unit test? If not, should we have one? > > Not that I am aware of. Writing unit tests for QemuOpts would probably > make sense, but I suppose it's not worth the effort for the > QemuOptionParameters stuff that we're going to remove anyway.
Yes. >> Even if yes, testing qemu-img like this still makes sense. But fewer >> test cases could do. > > Not sure. This test case is mainly meant to ensure that the behaviour > stays consistent even if we move to a different infrastructure > (QemuOptionParameter -> QemuOpts). It wouldn't be enough to test that > each of these is working correctly for itself. Makes sense. >>> + >>> +echo "== 2. Specifying size via -o ==" >>> +echo >>> +for s in $sizes; do >>> + test_qemu_img create -f $IMGFMT -o size=$s $TEST_IMG >>> +done >>> + >>> +echo "== 3. Invalid sizes ==" >>> +echo >>> +sizes="-1024 -1k 1kilobyte foobar" >>> + >>> +for s in $sizes; do >>> + test_qemu_img create -f $IMGFMT $TEST_IMG -- $s >>> + test_qemu_img create -f $IMGFMT -o size=$s $TEST_IMG >>> +done >> >> Valid sizes are tested in two loops, one for size parameter, one for -o, >> invalid sizes in a single combined loop. I don't mind, I just find it >> odd. > > The reason for having separate loops for valid sizes is mostly to keep > the output readable. There are much more valid sizes tested than invalid > ones. > >>> diff --git a/tests/qemu-iotests/048.out b/tests/qemu-iotests/048.out >>> new file mode 100644 >>> index 0000000..8569f3e >>> --- /dev/null >>> +++ b/tests/qemu-iotests/048.out >> [...] >> >> I figure this is simply current output, and we assume it's good. > > Yes, it is. And for some values of good (for example, the output for > negative sizes is creative, to say the least) "-o size=-1" is good one, too :)
