From: "\"Zhou, Wenjian/周文剑\"" <zhouwj-fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: Josh Stone <jistone@redhat.com>
Cc: <systemtap@sourceware.org>, David Smith <dsmith@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] add testcases for function definitions
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 02:11:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56415207.6050905@cn.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5640E0EE.2060803@redhat.com>
On 11/10/2015 02:07 AM, Josh Stone wrote:
> On 11/09/2015 12:57 AM, Zhou Wenjian wrote:
>> +foreach runtime [get_runtime_list] {
>> + if {$runtime != ""} {
>> + stap_run $srcdir/$subdir/$test.stp no_load ${all_pass_string}${all_pass_string}${all_pass_string}${all_pass_string}${all_pass_string} \
>> + --runtime=$runtime
>> + } else {
>> + stap_run $srcdir/$subdir/$test.stp no_load ${all_pass_string}${all_pass_string}${all_pass_string}${all_pass_string}${all_pass_string}
>> + }
>> +}
>
> I disagree with using repetition like this for "exact" results. The
> string already has regex repetition built in:
>
> set all_pass_string "(systemtap test success\r\n)+"
>
> '+' means match one or more, greedily. Repeating this expression on top
> of itself creates a bad case for the regex engine to backtrack.
> (It will work, but slowly.)
>
>
> IMO we ought to make stap_run ensure nothing comes *after* the expected
> output string. If there are tests that are legitimately printing more
> output, those are the ones we should be fixing.
>
> Maybe we could also add the string without repetition, something like:
>
> set pass_string "systemtap test success\r\n"
> set all_pass_string "($pass_string)+"
>
> Then you can use "($pass_string){5}" if you really want exactly 5
> matches. But stap_run should still make sure nothing comes after that.
>
>
I think either of them is enough to generate the correct result.
Why should stap_run still make sure nothing comes after matching
the exact output?
And between them, I prefer matching the exact output.
To make sure nothing comes, we have to modify all cases which use the
stap_run. I don't think it's a good idea that modifying the cases which
are working well.
--
Thanks
Zhou
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-11-10 2:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-11-09 8:58 Zhou Wenjian
2015-11-09 8:58 ` [PATCH 3/3] add more test cases for timer Zhou Wenjian
2015-11-09 8:58 ` [PATCH 2/3] Fix the testcases so that the result will be more exact Zhou Wenjian
2015-11-09 18:07 ` [PATCH 1/3] add testcases for function definitions Josh Stone
2015-11-09 21:24 ` David Smith
2015-11-09 22:21 ` Josh Stone
2015-11-10 2:11 ` "Zhou, Wenjian/周文剑" [this message]
2015-11-10 2:31 ` Josh Stone
2015-11-10 2:51 ` "Zhou, Wenjian/周文剑"
2015-11-10 7:07 ` "Zhou, Wenjian/周文剑"
2015-11-10 17:34 ` Josh Stone
2015-11-11 6:23 ` "Zhou, Wenjian/周文剑"
2015-11-11 14:03 ` Frank Ch. Eigler
2015-11-11 19:07 ` David Smith
2015-11-12 2:57 ` "Zhou, Wenjian/周文剑"
2015-11-26 8:43 Zhou Wenjian
2015-12-01 3:21 ` "Zhou, Wenjian/周文剑"
2015-12-04 13:45 ` David Smith
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=56415207.6050905@cn.fujitsu.com \
--to=zhouwj-fnst@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=dsmith@redhat.com \
--cc=jistone@redhat.com \
--cc=systemtap@sourceware.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).