Re: Question about adding cases of stapusr and stapdev

[David Smith <dsmith at redhat dot com>]

On 12/21/2015 08:05 PM, "Zhou, Wenjian/åæå" wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> I found there is no case which tests as stapusr or stapdev.
> I wonder if we need such cases which will create stapusr, stapdev,
> and then test as these users.

Hmm. I see what you are thinking, but I'm not sure that's a great use of
your time. We do test those privileges with the tests in the
systemtap.unprivileged directory. Creating users from the test suite is
problematic - I'm not sure admins would be too happy with us and the
commands to create users can vary from distro to distro.

> BTW, I have no more cases.

Here's one idea. I've been working with the dwarfless-kprobe
(kprobe.function and module.kprobe.function probes), and I found that
the module.kprobe stuff wasn't tested well. I fixed the
modules_out_of_tree.exp and kmodule.exp tests to test the
dwarfless-kprobe module support in the same manner as the dwarf-based
kprobe module suport (module.function probes). I'd find it helpful if
you could make a pass through the other tests and see if there are any I
missed that need some kprobe.module tests added.

Assuming you want to keep working on the testsuite, here's one PR to
look at:

<https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13874>

Here's another idea I've been thinking about. One problem we've got
right now is in comparing the results of one test run against another.
We've got several tests that seem to fail at random times and if you run
it again it will pass. I never seem to find the time to debug those
issues. A good place to start would be to run the testsuite several
times in a row and see which tests results aren't consistent. After
getting a list of odd tests, then we could start debugging the issues.

-- 
David Smith
dsmith@redhat.com
Red Hat
http://www.redhat.com
256.217.0141 (direct)
256.837.0057 (fax)