Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 28 Aug 2014 17:40:22 +0900 | From | Masami Hiramatsu <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/4] ftracetest: Initial commit for ftracetest |
| |
(2014/08/28 0:54), Luis Henriques wrote: > Hi, > > Not really a complete review, but just 2 comments on this script: > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:15:18AM +0000, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > ... >> +prlog() { # messages >> + echo $@ | tee -a $LOG_FILE >> +} >> +catlog() { #file >> + cat $1 | tee -a $LOG_FILE >> +} >> + >> +# Testcase management >> +PASSED_CASES= >> +FAILED_CASES= >> +CASENO=0 >> +testcase() { # testfile >> + CASENO=$((CASENO+1)) >> + prlog -n "[$CASENO]"`grep "^#[ \t]*description:" $1 | cut -f2 -d:` >> +} >> +failed() { >> + prlog -e "\t[FAIL]" >> + FAILED_CASES="$FAILED_CASES $CASENO" >> +} >> +passed() { >> + prlog -e "\t[PASS]" >> + PASSED_CASES="$PASSED_CASES $CASENO" >> +} > > What I see here is a '-e' being echo'ed and not really a '-e' switch > being used to 'echo'. (Also, I'm not sure if this is a standard > switch...). > > This applies to all the other 'prlog -e'.
Oh, really? what shell did you use? My target shell is the busybox and I've tested it on fedora20.
e.g. busybox echo command seems accept -e. $ busybox echo -e '\tfoo' foo
Of course maybe I'd better not use \t, but " "...
>> + >> + >> +# Run one test case >> +run_test() { # testfile >> + local testname=`basename $1` >> + local testlog=`mktemp --tmpdir=$LOG_DIR ${testname}-XXXXXX.log` >> + testcase $1 >> + echo "execute: "$1 > $testlog >> + (cd $TRACING_DIR; set -x ; source $t) >> $testlog 2>&1 >> + ret=$? > > I believe the usage of 'source' is a bashism, and '.' should be used > instead. In my environment, 'source' results in ret=127. Replacing > it by '.' fixes it.
Ah, right. I missed that, I'll fix that :)
Thank you,
-- Masami HIRAMATSU Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Research Center Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com
| |