On 17.03.22 18:45, John Snow wrote:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 1:00 PM John Snow <js...@redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 11:39 AM Hanna Reitz <hre...@redhat.com> wrote:
On 09.03.22 04:54, John Snow wrote:
Add configurable filters to qemu_img_log(), and re-write img_info_log()
to call into qemu_img_log() with a custom filter instead.
After this patch, every last call to qemu_img() is now guaranteed to
either have its return code checked for zero, OR have its output
actually visibly logged somewhere.
Signed-off-by: John Snow <js...@redhat.com>
---
tests/qemu-iotests/iotests.py | 13 +++++++++----
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
From my POV, this is a regression because before this patch (not this
series, though, admittedly), `img_info_log()` would throw an exception
on error, and with patch 12 being as it is, it will revert to its
pre-series behavior of not throwing an exception. I prefer exceptions
Oh, actually... patch #12 does this:
- output = qemu_img_pipe(*args)
+ output = qemu_img(*args, check=False).stdout
:(
You’re right, I missed that.
so I never actually toggled error checking on for this function at
all. This isn't a regression.
At a glance, img_info_log() calls fail as a matter of course in 242
and 266 and ... hm, I can't quite test 207, it doesn't work for me,
even before this series.
Ugh, broken in e3296cc796aeaf319f3ed4e064ec309baf5e4da4.
(putting that on my TOFIX list)
I didn't test *all* qemu_img calls yet either, but ... I'm going to
gently suggest that "converting logged calls to qemu_img() to be
checked calls" is "for another series" material.
:C
I mean, adding a `check` parameter to `img_info_log()` and
`qemu_img_log()` would be something like a 9+/5- diff (including 242 and
266 changes, but disregarding the necessary comment changes in
`qemu_img_log()`). I think that’d be fine, and a bit thin for its own
“series”. O:)
Hanna
