mac_bsdextended: ATFify the tests
This is a precondition to fixing bug 244229
Details
Details
Diff Detail
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rS FreeBSD src repository - subversion
- Lint
Lint Passed - Unit
No Test Coverage - Build Status
Buildable 30253 Build 28032: arc lint + arc unit
Event Timeline
Comment Actions
This is a precondition to fixing bug 244229
I understand why this was a precondition to fixing bug 244229 after reading the bug, but without that context, I wouldn't know why. Could you please clarify that in the commit message?
| tests/sys/mac/bsdextended/Makefile | ||
|---|---|---|
| 6–7 | nit: why not sort matches_test above ugidfw_test, since ATF < TAP, sorting-wise? | |
| tests/sys/mac/bsdextended/matches_test.sh | ||
| 67 | Why isn't this filename parameterized at the global level? | |
| 285 | Why not set this property in the Makefile? | |
| 341 | Wouldn't it be a good idea here (and elsewhere) to check the return code from ugidfw, etc? | |
| 376 | Why not use atf_check with an inverted exit code check? | |
| tests/sys/mac/bsdextended/matches_test.sh | ||
|---|---|---|
| 14 | Where is this called in the new code? | |
| tests/sys/mac/bsdextended/matches_test.sh | ||
|---|---|---|
| 67 | Because it's the result of mktemp. Though, now that we're using ATF, it doesn't have to be. I'll change it. | |
| 285 | I generally prefer to set those things in the test file because it's more granular. It's done per testcase here, whereas it must be per test program if done in the Makefile. Do you think I should change it? | |
| 341 | Yeah, probably. | |
| 376 | Sure. It will remove the failure descriptions, but those aren't very useful anyway. | |
Comment Actions
mac_bsdextended: ATFify the tests
The new tests have more complete setup and cleanup, are more granular, and
correctly annotate expected failures and skipped tests. A follow-up commit
will resolve a conflict with the fusefs tests (bug 244229)