[PATCH 1/3] add testcases for function definitions

["Zhou, Wenjian/周文剑"]

On 11/12/2015 03:07 AM, David Smith wrote:
> On 11/11/2015 08:03 AM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
>> 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.

Maybe we can implement it for the new cases.

>
> stap_run.exp is probably too complicated. I've attached a small patch to
> it that tries to catch any "extra" output. Note that I haven't tried
> running the entire testsuite with this patch to see if this breaks anything.
>

The patch will also cause 20+ more cases error(in systemtap.base).

> The starting/ending boilerplate doesn't really bother me, but I think we
> should modify all the scripts to only print one success/fail line (which
> Zhou Wenjian suggested several messages back). That is going to be
> simple to test for, but a little more complicated in the test script
> itself (but not too bad).
>

Why isn't the implementation in PATCH v2 a good choice?
It will do the least change to the testsuite and has the minimum risk of
affecting other cases. In other hand, printing several success lines doesn't
have any bad effects.

> We should also switch the "all_pass_string" to only be one copy of the
> "success" string.
>

-- 
Thanks
Zhou