Re: [PATCH v3 06/10] iotests: add testfinder.py

[Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy]

21.04.2020 19:56, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 21.04.2020 um 09:35 hat Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy geschrieben:
> > Add python script with new logic of searching for tests:
> >
> > Current ./check behavior:
> >   - tests are named [0-9][0-9][0-9]
> >   - tests must be registered in group file (even if test doesn't belong
> >     to any group, like 142)
> >
> > Behavior of new test:
> >   - group file is dropped
> >   - tests are searched by file-name instead of group file, so it's not
> >     needed more to "register the test", just create it with name
> >     *-test. Old names like [0-9][0-9][0-9] are supported too, but not
> >     recommended for new tests
>
> I wonder if a tests/ subdirectory instead of the -test suffix would
> organise things a bit better.

It will make more difficult to import iotests.py.. Calling common.rc from
bash tests will need to be modified too.

So, we'll need additional line in all python tests:

sys.path.append(os.path.join(os.path.dirname(__file__), '..'))

which doesn't seem to be good practice.. So, instead we'd better call tests 
with PYTHONPATH set appropriately..

and modify bash tests to do
. ../common.rc
. ../common.filter
<etc>

or again, better to export BASH_TEST_LIB directory.

Is it worth doing?

I think, there are two variants:

1) keep as is: all in one directory, add *-test notation

2) go further and restructure to something like:

iotests/<only check script and its dependencies here>
iotests/tests/<all-tests-here>
iotests/lib/python/iotests.py
iotests/lib/bash/<common.rc and friends here>

And then, check script will export PYTHONPATH and BASH_TEST_LIB variables.

In case of [2], I definitely prefer to split directory tree refactoring to the 
separate series. So this series just rewrite check into python and get rid of 
group file.

What do you prefer?

--
Best regards,
Vladimir