[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-btrfs
Subject:    Re: [PATCH v2 00/27] btrfs-progs: introduce libbtrfsutil, "btrfs-progs as a library"
From:       Omar Sandoval <osandov () osandov ! com>
Date:       2018-02-27 20:48:13
Message-ID: 20180227204813.GB23026 () vader ! DHCP ! thefacebook ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 04:04:28PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 03:36:41PM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 09:28:42PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:50:32AM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 04:13:38PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 07:50:48PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
> > > > > > I have more comments or maybe questions about the future development
> > > > > > workflow, but at this point the patchset is in a good shape for
> > > > > > incremental merge.
> > > > > 
> > > > > After removnig the first patch adding subvolume.c (with
> > > > > linux/btrfs_tree.h) and what depends on it, I'm left with:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Omar Sandoval (4):
> > > > >       Add libbtrfsutil
> > > > >       libbtrfsutil: add Python bindings
> > > > >       libbtrfsutil: add qgroup inheritance helpers
> > > > >       libbtrfsutil: add filesystem sync helpers
> > > > > 
> > > > > with some context updates. That builds and passes the CI tests.
> > > > 
> > > > Great. Does the CI system run the Python tests yet?
> > > 
> > > Tested here https://travis-ci.org/kdave/btrfs-progs/jobs/345410536 ,
> > > does not pass.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > test_start_sync (test_filesystem.TestSubvolume) ... mkfs.btrfs: invalid option -- 'q'
> > > usage: mkfs.btrfs [options] dev [ dev ... ]
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Looks like it tries to use the system mkfs.btrfs that is old.
> > 
> > Hm... according the documentation for the existing tests, the person
> > running the tests is expected to set PATH to contain the local binaries,
> 
> No, where is this written? The closest hit is in the 'Exported
> testsuite' but otherwise all paths must be "$TOP/mkfs.btrfs". The
> testsuite will detect where it is running and will set the TOP variable
> accordingly, but this is transparent to the tests.
> 
> The python tests should probably build on the same exec path magic.

Oops, I misunderstood from skimming the exported testsuite too quickly.
I'll update the Python tests to do something similar.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]