On Donnerstag, 5. Januar 2017 17:15:02 CET you wrote:
On 01/01/2017 02:48 PM, Stefan Bruens wrote:
On Montag, 12. Dezember 2016 11:04:34 CET you wrote:
On 12/04/2016 05:52 PM, Stefan Brüns wrote:
From: Stefan Brüns stefan.bruens@rwth-aachen.de
The following checks are currently implemented:
- listing a directory
- verifying size of a file
- veryfying md5sum for a file region
- reading the beginning of a file
- Doesn't mounting/unmounting require root? Nothing else in test/py
does. It'd be useful to put a comment at the top of the file detailing which command one might want to add to /etc/sudoers to avoid having to run the whole thing as root, and use sudo within the test where necessary.
It already uses sudo, the run command is visible from the log. Currently, I just run "sudo true" prior to executing the test, the password is cached for 5 minutes.
I don't see sudo used anywhere in test/py; can you point out where you see it using sudo at present?
it == the fs test
+class FsImage:
...
- def mount(self, log):
if not os.path.exists(self.mountpath):os.mkdir(self.mountpath)Use os.makedirs(path) instead; you can avoid the if statement, and it'll handle parent directories too.
exist_ok only exists in python >= 3.2.
There's no need to use exist_ok; do this (example from conftest.py):
try: os.makedirs(path) except OSError as exc: if exc.errno == errno.EEXIST and os.path.isdir(path): pass else: raise
Thats not what you wrote. You said "you can avoid the if statement". What you meant is "you can replace the single line if statement with a 6 line exception handling statement". The latter is *only* better iff you have to handle concurrent creation of the wanted directory.
+@pytest.fixture(scope='module', params=['fat', 'ext4']) +def fsimage(prereq_commands, u_boot_config, u_boot_log, request):
- """Filesystem image instance."""
- datadir = u_boot_config.result_dir + '/'
Wouldn't it be better to put this into u_boot_config.persistent_data_dir, plus avoid creating the image file if it already exists? See u_boot_utils.py's PersistentRandomFile() as an example. I wonder if that could be expanded to create files not just of size n, but with sparse layout specs like this test uses?
See above. I don't think PersistentRandomFile() does fit here, as the files are created *inside* an image. Maybe it could be used after the image and filesystem is created and mounted ...
You missed my point. PersistentRandomFile() is existing code that creates a persistent data file. You can create a new function/... that uses the same techniques to create the data file, but make it create a filesystem image rather than random data.
The disk image is a fixture, so it should be created as a fixture. The usage of PersistentRandomFile as currently done is wrong, it is a prerequisite of the test, not part of the test itself.
The correct use of PersistentRandomFile might be as a helper function used by different fixtures.
1. persistent_data_dir may be the better choice, but only if the image is created as a template there and then copied to a different location for each test run - the idea is to modify the image by write tests, and a clean image is needed here. Feel free to implement this yourself.
2. PersistentRandomFile creates single files, the only parameter is the size (although extending it to sparse files is quite possible). Disk images with filesystems have a lot more parameters - filesystem itself, filesystem options, filesystem contents.
Actually you missed my point here - PersistentRandomFile() is existing code, but it is useless here. Shoehorning it in here or extending it until it suits is a bad idea. It does one thing, and it does it fine. Creation of disk images is a different thing it does and should not do.
- fstype = request.param
- imagepath = datadir + '3GB.' + fstype + '.img'
- mountpath = datadir + 'mnt_' + fstype
- with u_boot_log.section('Create image "{0}"'.format(imagepath)):
fsimage = FsImage(fstype, imagepath, mountpath)fsimage.mkfs(u_boot_log)- yield fsimage
- fsimage.unmount(u_boot_log)
Unmounting seems to happen in a lot of different places. Can we isolate it to just one place?
The image is mounted/unmounted for two different reasons - creating/populating the image, and when accessing it using the hostfs commands.
IIRC, there's more duplication than that, but I'll look again when this is reposted.
Also, what happens if the code throws an exception after obtaining an fsimage from this generator; I'm not sure that any cleanup happens in that case. Should there be "try: ... finally: unmount()" somewhere to clean up even in the case of an error? Alternatively, perhaps class FsImage should have a destructor that does the unmount (at least if it hasn't happened already)?
Its a fixture and will be torn down by pytest.
How does that work? Once the fixture function has yielded the image, surely if an exception is thrown, it'll be "thrown through" the generator function and hence prevent the rest of the function body from running? Or is there some special magic that lets the generator complete, even if the yield effectively threw an exception?
Please read up on pytest: http://pytest.org/dev/yieldfixture.html
return output[1:3]No error checking for output[0]? I suppose if u_boot_console_base.py's bad_pattern_defs[] included error patterns that "readcmd" was expected to emit, that'd be fine, but it doesn't currently. Maybe we expect that the other command can't possibly succeed if the read doesn't. Similar comment for run_sizecmd() below, and perhaps elsewhere.
filesize is only set if the read succeeds, and "env print filesize" matches bad_pattern_defs in case of an error.
What pattern is printed that matches bad_pattern_defs? Nothing in bad_pattern_defs obviously would get printed if $filesize wasn't set.
=> env print foo ## Error: "foo" not defined
Also, what if $filesize is still set from an earlier test (e.g. in a different Python file), and a later test fails, yet this isn't detected since that relies on $filesize not being set? I see this script doing "env set filesize" /after/ its own tests which should prevent this, but not /before/ the first test.
There you have a point. *If* filesize where set, *and* the previously set value matches the expected value *and* this is the very first test to check $filesize, an error would have gone unnoticed ...
Regards,
Stefan