Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 1/4] iotests: add script_initialize

[Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>]

16.09.2019 19:32, John Snow wrote:
> 
> 
> On 9/16/19 10:56 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>> 12.09.2019 3:16, John Snow wrote:
>>> Like script_main, but doesn't require a single point of entry.
>>> Replace all existing initialization sections with this drop-in replacement.
>>>
>>> This brings debug support to all existing script-style iotests.
>>>
>>> Note: supported_oses=['linux'] was omitted, as it is a default argument.
>>
>> But after this patch all test which didn't check os start to check linux
>> (as it's default).. So all tests which worked on other platforms will now
>> be skipped on these other platforms?
>>
> 
> def verify_platform(supported_oses=['linux']):
>      if True not in [sys.platform.startswith(x) for x in supported_oses]:
>          notrun('not suitable for this OS: %s' % sys.platform)
> 
> 
> It was already the default. I didn't *make* it the default.

Yes. But for some tests, verify_platform wasn't called before this patch at all.
And now it is called and checks "linux". It's the change. Or what I miss?

> There is no
> change here. Feel free to propose a fix, but I don't think it's within
> the scope of this series.
> 
>> Finally do we support something except linux for iotests?
>> for bash tests _supported_os also used only with "Linux" in 87 tests..
>>
> 
> Evidently, not really. See bc521696607c5348fcd8a9e57b408d0ac0dbe2f8
> 
>> May be we'd better drop both _supported_os and supported_oses alltogether,
>> and don't care?
>>
> 
> Beyond the scope of this series.
> 
>> Anyway, if we support only linux, any reason to skip almost all tests,
>> if someone tries to run test on other platform? Let him run what he wants.
> 
> Maybe true, maybe not.
> 
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>
>> [..]
>>
>>> +def execute_test(test_function=None, *args, **kwargs):
>>> +    """Run either unittest or script-style tests."""
>>> +
>>> +    debug = execute_setup_common(*args, **kwargs)
>>>        if not test_function:
>>> -        execute_unittest(output, verbosity, debug)
>>> +        execute_unittest(debug)
>>>        else:
>>>            test_function()
>>>    
>>> +# This is called from script-style iotests without a single point of entry
>>> +def script_initialize(*args, **kwargs):
>>> +    """Initialize script-style tests without running any tests."""
>>> +    execute_setup_common(*args, **kwargs)
>>> +
>>> +# This is called from script-style iotests with a single point of entry
>>>    def script_main(test_function, *args, **kwargs):
>>>        """Run script-style tests outside of the unittest framework"""
>>>        execute_test(test_function, *args, **kwargs)
>>>    
>>> +# This is called from unittest style iotests
>>>    def main(*args, **kwargs):
>>>        """Run tests using the unittest framework"""
>>
>>
>> Hmm, now two different styles of code documenting used: comment and doc-string,
>> both containing almost equal meaning.. I don't like it, still don't really mind.
> 
> I think I was trying to document what the function /does/ separately
> from a note about explaining how and where it is used. It's quite nearly
> redundant and if it's distracting I can remove it.
> 


-- 
Best regards,
Vladimir