From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 130357 invoked by alias); 10 Nov 2015 02:51:35 -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 130348 invoked by uid 89); 10 Nov 2015 02:51:34 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: Yes, score=5.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,BODY_8BITS,GARBLED_BODY,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: heian.cn.fujitsu.com Received: from cn.fujitsu.com (HELO heian.cn.fujitsu.com) (59.151.112.132) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 02:51:33 +0000 Received: from bogon (HELO edo.cn.fujitsu.com) ([10.167.33.5]) by heian.cn.fujitsu.com with ESMTP; 10 Nov 2015 10:51:19 +0800 Received: from G08CNEXCHPEKD02.g08.fujitsu.local (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by edo.cn.fujitsu.com (8.14.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id tAA2oqcH000871; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:50:52 +0800 Received: from localhost.localdomain (10.167.226.48) by G08CNEXCHPEKD02.g08.fujitsu.local (10.167.33.89) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.181.6; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:51:30 +0800 Message-ID: <56415B6E.8030808@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 02:51:00 -0000 From: =?UTF-8?B?Ilpob3UsIFdlbmppYW4v5ZGo5paH5YmRIg==?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Josh Stone CC: , David Smith Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] add testcases for function definitions References: <1447059456-19811-1-git-send-email-zhouwj-fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <5640E0EE.2060803@redhat.com> <56415207.6050905@cn.fujitsu.com> <56415718.2010100@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <56415718.2010100@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-q4/txt/msg00103.txt.bz2 On 11/10/2015 10:31 AM, Josh Stone wrote: > On 11/09/2015 06:10 PM, "Zhou, Wenjian/=E5=91=A8=E6=96=87=E5=89=91" 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. > I don't think it is necessary to concern about case authors' mistakes in the test suite. >> 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. > Yes, I just mean the "+" and "{5}". >> 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. > Eh, if it works, I think the "{5}" won't be needed. But I doubt whether it will introduce errors to some cases. I will think more about it. --=20 Thanks Zhou