From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 65935 invoked by alias); 10 Nov 2015 02:31:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact systemtap-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: systemtap-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 65922 invoked by uid 89); 10 Nov 2015 02:31:55 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,BODY_8BITS,GARBLED_BODY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 02:31:54 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70F6D550CD; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 02:31:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.3.113.207] (ovpn-113-207.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.207]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id tAA2Vq6g006991; Mon, 9 Nov 2015 21:31:53 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] add testcases for function definitions To: =?UTF-8?B?WmhvdSwgV2Vuamlhbi/lkajmlofliZE=?= References: <1447059456-19811-1-git-send-email-zhouwj-fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <5640E0EE.2060803@redhat.com> <56415207.6050905@cn.fujitsu.com> Cc: systemtap@sourceware.org, David Smith From: Josh Stone Message-ID: <56415718.2010100@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 02:31:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56415207.6050905@cn.fujitsu.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-q4/txt/msg00102.txt.bz2 On 11/09/2015 06:10 PM, "Zhou, Wenjian/周文剑" wrote: > 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? Because people make mistakes. Perhaps the test.exp looks for 5 success lines, but the test.stp outputs 6 lines - this should be flagged. The extra line might have been added later, forgetting to update test.exp too. And if the extra line of output happens to report a failure, we don't want to miss that. Checking that nothing comes after is a way to be sure that we really are matching exact output. > And between them, I prefer matching the exact output. You mean between "+" and "{5}"? Explicit counts are fine with me, but I don't like manually repeating the match string. > 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. If my probe-final-"EOF" idea works, then we can implement that entirely in stap_run, without modifying any testcases.