Re: [PATCH 1/3] add testcases for function definitions

[fche@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler)]

=?UTF-8?B?Ilpob3UsIFdlbmppYW4v5ZGo5paH5YmRIg==?= <zhouwj-fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> writes:

> [...]
> In case "div0", the probe will be exit with error.
> So the expected "EOF" will never be got.

(A "probe error { }" catches even those.)


> [...]  And there are a lot of such problems.  I don't think
> probe-final-"EOF" is needed, for it won't help much, though each
> error it introduces can be fixed easily.

Yeah.

I think the more basic problem is the general pattern of these test
cases, where multiple identical messages are printed to report subtest
status.  In a more ideal world, instead of:

systemtap starting probe
systemtap ending probe
systemtap test success
systemtap test success
systemtap test success
systemtap test success

those .stp scripts that can self-diagnose should say simply:

success
or
failure (detail)

those .stp scripts that cannot self-diagnose should say simply:

result1 FOO
result2 BAR
result3 ZOO

No "systemtap" / "starting" / "ending" boilerplate is needed; nor
repeated lines whose counting is critical.


- FChE