RE: [PATCH 0/3] introducing tools/perf/testsuite

["平松雅巳 / HIRAMATU，MASAMI" <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>]

Hi Michael,

>Hi all,
>
>in the following patches I introduce a skeleton of a testsuite for
>perf tool. The idea of this testsuite is to primarily cover all the
>sub-commands perf has and verify their functionality.

Nice!
I also have ftracetest based homebrew testscripts (shellscripts)
for perf-probe. Mine requires just a posix shell and some core utils (no perl),
but only covers perf-probe (since it is what I need :) )

I'll post my runtest script series soon.

>The testsuite is designed to be structured in order to be able to
>keep an order in some amount of testcases. Each group of testcases
>is located in a base_<something> dir with its init and cleanup
>scripts and shell files test_<something>.sh that should carry the
>testcases. Each testcase can have multiple assertions inside. The
>base_skeleton and base_stat are an example. New tests are supposed
>to be derived from them.
>
>Since the testsuite is meant to be usable for both smoke and deeper
>testing, it has some parametrization in common/parametrization.sh.
>
>My idea is to add testcases for the other existing builtin commands
>and then continue extending it for the upcoming ones.
>
>How does it seem to you? Thoughts?

I like this kind of outside tests instead of perf-test. Some sort of features
can be tested by the perf-test, but more complex features like
perf-probe SDT support etc. are hard to be tested (or/and to write testcases)
inside the perf-test.

I think just a set of shell script is good to go since we can check the result easily
and good to review if the testcase is included in a new feature.

Thank you,