On 06/06/2018 05:23 PM, Cleber Rosa wrote: > On 06/06/2018 04:11 PM, Eduardo Habkost wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 04:36:16PM -0300, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >>> On 06/06/2018 04:24 PM, Eduardo Habkost wrote: >>>> On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 11:45:03AM -0300, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >>>> [... something about config files ...] >>>>>> And after that, the following would run all "console" tests: >>>>>> >>>>>> avocado run -t console >>>>>> >>>>>> How does this sound? >>>>> >>>>> For my use cases this doesn't worry me, I'll let Eduardo/Fam opine about >>>>> use_test_dir_when_no_references_given. >>>> >>>> Well, I can't give an opinion because I couldn't understand >>>> what's the final goal here. >>> >>> You cut too much, the relevant part is: >>> >>> On 05/30/2018 10:06 PM, Cleber Rosa wrote: >>> > But at the same, there are security implications: `list` won't >>> > load/execute any test code (different from, say, standard Python >>> > unittests), while "run" obviously will. So "avocado run" may end up >>> > running what users don't want if a malicious user controls >>> > "$avocado_datadir_paths_test_dir". >> >> The final goal still isn't clear to me. Why would somebody want >> to use $avocado_datadir_paths_test_dir instead of just specifying >> "." in the command-line?
Oh I guess I misunderstood your first review, I'll just improve the commit message and repost. >> >> >>> >>>> >>>> What exactly is missing in the current solution? Why >>>> "avocado run -t console ." wouldn't work? >>> >>> It doesn't work in out-of-tree builds, I have to use the full path: >>> >>> >> build_dir$ avocado run >>> /full/path/to/sources/qemu/tests/acceptance/boot_linux_console.py >> >> Isn't the symlink you suggested a better solution than requiring >> the user to edit a config file? >> > > It's definitely the simplest, and would avoid a questionable knob and > behavior in Avocado. :)
