On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 02:47:00PM +0530, Nirjhar Roy (IBM) wrote:
> On Thu, 2025-04-17 at 13:00 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > We haven't had any tests using the "999-the-mark-of-fstests" name
> > format for a long time. Th eonly test that used this format was
> > xfs/191-input-validation, and that got removed in 2022 by commit
> > c1941d6f5 ("xfs/191: remove broken test").
> >
> > However, the infrastructure for this naming convention still exists,
> > so lets get rid of that dead code so we don't have to carry it
> > anymore.
> Any other reason why we are planning to remove this convention apart
> from the fact that it is not being used for a long time?
It hasn't been used because nobody has ever really seen much value in trying
to describe the test in the test filename. It would be used if
people valued it, right? Mostly, though, people complained about
that one test with a weird name....
> But yes,I
> agree that only numeric names are easier to refer and we can also use
> some one liner shell script tricks to run several tests - something
> like
> ./check xfs/{1...100} to run all the tests from xfs/1 xfs/2 ... xfs/100
> (ofcourse assuming all these tests with these numbers exist).
Right, that becomes more complex as soon as names have free-form
components.
If you want to know what all the tests do, use the lsqa.pl to
extract the initial comment in the test that describes what the test
is exercising.
-Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
