On 10.05.19 18:20, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 10/05/2019 15.47, Max Reitz wrote: >> On 10.05.19 15:36, Thomas Huth wrote: >>> On 10/05/2019 15.34, Max Reitz wrote: >>>> On 10.05.19 06:29, Thomas Huth wrote: >>>>> On 09/05/2019 20.08, Max Reitz wrote: >>>>>> On 02.05.19 10:45, Thomas Huth wrote: >>>>>>> People often forget to run the iotests before submitting patches or >>>>>>> pull requests - this is likely due to the fact that we do not run the >>>>>>> tests during our mandatory "make check" tests yet. Now that we've got >>>>>>> a proper "auto" group of iotests that should be fine to run in every >>>>>>> environment, we can enable the iotests during "make check" again by >>>>>>> running the "auto" tests by default from the check-block.sh script. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Some cases still need to be checked first, though: iotests need bash >>>>>>> and GNU sed (otherwise they fail), and if gprof is enabled, it spoils >>>>>>> the output of some test cases causing them to fail. So if we detect >>>>>>> that one of the required programs is missing or that gprof is enabled, >>>>>>> we still have to skip the iotests to avoid failures. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And finally, since we are using check-block.sh now again, this patch >>>>>>> also >>>>>>> removes the qemu-iotests-quick.sh script since we do not need that >>>>>>> anymore >>>>>>> (and having two shell wrapper scripts around the block tests seem >>>>>>> rather confusing than helpful). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> tests/Makefile.include | 8 +++---- >>>>>>> tests/check-block.sh | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- >>>>>>> tests/qemu-iotests-quick.sh | 8 ------- >>>>>>> 3 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) >>>>>>> delete mode 100755 tests/qemu-iotests-quick.sh >>>>>> >>>>>> Can I interest you in a Makefile target that explicitly excludes >>>>>> check-block? I run the iotests anyway, but I also run make check. >>>>>> Running some iotests twice would be a bit pointless. >>>>> >>>>> Can't you simply run >>>>> >>>>> ./check -qcow2 -x auto >>>>> >>>>> instead? >>>> >>>> I don’t run just qcow2 tests. I run qcow2, qcow2 with compat=0.10, >>>> qcow2 with refcount_bits=1, raw, nbd, qed, vmdk, vhdx, ... A lot. >>>> >>>> So for which of the protocol/format combinations do I exclude the auto >>>> group? check-block.sh says it runs raw, qcow2, qed, vmdk, and vpc. But >>>> may that not be subject to change? >>> >>> With my patch series, the auto group is only used for qcow2. >> >> And that is not subject to change? Like, maybe someone wants to add nbd >> in the future? > > The current set of qcow2 auto tests takes already quite a while, so I > don't think that this will change soon. > And if the "normal" users want to run more tests, they can simply use > "make check SPEED=slow" or SPEED=thorough, so IMHO no need to extend the > quick default list right now. > >> I mean, I have a test branch anyway which collects a number of patches >> on top of master that make everything pass more or less reliably for me >> (11 patches currently...). I suppose I can just revert your patch on >> top of that. But that doesn’t feel right. > > Hmm, sure, non-upstream patches are always a bad thing. But I still > don't see why you really need an extra Makefile target for this. In the > worst case, you could also simply change your script to run something > this instead: > > make $(grep ^check: tests/Makefile.include | sed s/check-block//) > > ?
Hm. I didn’t think of that. Thanks. :-) Max
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
