From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan Stancek Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 08:23:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] request_key04: Use TFAIL instead of TBROK In-Reply-To: <20200226124826.GA24080@rei> References: <20200226084249.29561-1-pvorel@suse.cz> <20200226091824.GA2215@dell5510> <20200226113757.GA24342@dell5510> <20200226124826.GA24080@rei> Message-ID: <1576675558.9115231.1582723422538.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it ----- Original Message ----- > Hi! > > > In personally, I'd let tst_res() only accept 'TPASS, TFAIL, TINFO, TCONF, > > > TWARN'. > > +1. Cyril, Jan? > > I guess that it does not make much sense to report TBROK and then > continue the test. But that all depends on how exactly are these states > defined. Have we ever wrote them down? > > I guess that TPASS and TFAIL are obvious. > > TINFO is just additional information. > > TCONF is test skipped. > > TWARN something went wrong but we decided to continue? This appears to be mostly used in cleanup() when something goes wrong. So a failure that's not critical, not related to goal of test, but still something we want to draw attention to. > > TBROK something went wrong and we decided to exit? We do have following in style-guide.txt: Use +TBROK+ when an unexpected failure unrelated to the goal of the testcase occurred, and use +TFAIL+ when an unexpected failure related to the goal of the testcase occurred. I agree that tst_res with TBROK doesn't make much sense. I see TBROK as something we can't recover from and need to end the test. Otherwise if we want to skip part of test, then TCONF looks more fitting.