[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] testsuite formatting bugs [was: [PATCH] Skip some xen tests if xend is not running]



2011/7/9 Eric Blake <eblake redhat com>:
> On 07/08/2011 05:28 PM, Matthias Bolte wrote:
>>> TEST: virsh-all
>>>      ........................................ 40
>>>      ........................................ 80
>>>      ........................................ 120
>>>      ....................................... 159 OK
>>> PASS: virsh-all
>>>
>>> We're obviously getting the logic wrong when there are 0 or when
>>> tests%40 == 39.
>>
>> Here are two patches for this, plus one to use EXIT_AM_SKIP more.
>
> An even better patch for the SKIP logic.  Why do a for loop of
> one space at a time, when printf can do it for us?
>
> From fbaee4f7df0bd04520948228de125ce0c6112130 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Eric Blake <eblake redhat com>
> Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 19:55:02 -0600
> Subject: [PATCH] tests: handle skipped tests better
>
> Without this, running statstest withtout xen wasn't formatted well:
>
> TEST: statstest
>       0   FAIL
> SKIP: statstest
>
> * tests/testutils.c (virtTestMain): Special case skipped test.
> ---
>  tests/testutils.c |    8 ++++----
>  1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tests/testutils.c b/tests/testutils.c
> index b433204..fe04caa 100644
> --- a/tests/testutils.c
> +++ b/tests/testutils.c
> @@ -689,10 +689,10 @@ cleanup:
>         VIR_FREE(abs_srcdir);
>     virResetLastError();
>     if (!virTestGetVerbose()) {

When we add && ret != EXIT_AM_SKIP here ...

> -        int i;
> -        for (i = (testCounter % 40) ; i > 0 && i < 40 ; i++)
> -            fprintf(stderr, " ");
> -        fprintf(stderr, " %-3d %s\n", testCounter, ret == 0 ? "OK" :
> "FAIL");
> +        if (testCounter == 0 || testCounter % 40)
> +            fprintf(stderr, "%*s", 40 - (testCounter % 40), "");
> +        fprintf(stderr, " %-3d %s\n", testCounter,
> +                ret == 0 ? "OK" : ret == EXIT_AM_SKIP ? "SKIP" : "FAIL");

.. then we don't need to handle EXIT_AM_SKIP here.

ACK.

-- 
Matthias Bolte
http://photron.blogspot.com


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]