Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 5/5] selftests/bpf: Add test for "bpftool feature" command | From | Quentin Monnet <> | Date | Tue, 25 Feb 2020 14:54:43 +0000 |
| |
2020-02-25 14:55 UTC+0100 ~ Michal Rostecki <mrostecki@opensuse.org> > On 2/21/20 12:28 PM, Quentin Monnet wrote: >>> + @default_iface >>> + def test_feature_dev(self, iface): >>> + expected_patterns = [ >>> + SECTION_SYSCALL_CONFIG_PATTERN, >>> + SECTION_PROGRAM_TYPES_PATTERN, >>> + SECTION_MAP_TYPES_PATTERN, >>> + SECTION_HELPERS_PATTERN, >>> + SECTION_MISC_PATTERN, >>> + ] >> >> Mixed feeling on the tests with plain output, as we keep telling people >> that plain output should not be parsed (not reliable, may change). But >> if you want to run one or two tests with it, why not, I guess. > > I thought about that and yes, testing the plain output is probably > redundant and makes those tests less readable. However, the only plain > output test which I would like to keep there is test_feature_macros - > because I guess that we are not planning to change names or patterns of > generated macros (or if so, we should test that change). >
I did not mentally include the header/macros output in “plain output”, but yeah I guess I was not explicit on this one. So: Agreed, with “macros” it should not change and it is welcome in the tests, feel free to keep it :)
Quentin
| |