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

["Zhou, Wenjian/åæå" <zhouwj-fnst at cn dot fujitsu dot com>]

On 11/10/2015 10:31 AM, Josh Stone wrote:
> On 11/09/2015 06:10 PM, "Zhou, Wenjian/åæå" 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.

--
Thanks
Zhou