From owner-freebsd-testing@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 3 06:30:49 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-testing@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 067C0D9D for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 06:30:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay03.pair.com (relay03.pair.com [209.68.5.17]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9A0BBDF0 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 06:30:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 9768 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2014 06:30:47 -0000 Received: from 87.58.146.155 (HELO x2.osted.lan) (87.58.146.155) by relay03.pair.com with SMTP; 3 Mar 2014 06:30:47 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 87.58.146.155 Received: from x2.osted.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by x2.osted.lan (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s236UkR3070941; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 07:30:46 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from pho@x2.osted.lan) Received: (from pho@localhost) by x2.osted.lan (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id s236Uk7V070940; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 07:30:46 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from pho) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 07:30:46 +0100 From: Peter Holm To: Julio Merino Subject: Re: My first ATF test Message-ID: <20140303063046.GB70172@x2.osted.lan> References: <20140225161129.GA59741@x2.osted.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: "freebsd-testing@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-testing@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Testing on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 06:30:49 -0000 On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 03:44:14PM -0500, Julio Merino wrote: > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Peter Holm wrote: > > In order to understand how ATF works I wrote a small test so I had > > something to work with: > > http://people.freebsd.org/~pho/kern_descrip_test.diff > > Did I get it right? > > Hello Peter, > > Looks good to me. > > One suggestion: that comment with the explanation for dup2_r234131 > would be much better represented either as 1) a more descriptive test > case name or 2) a test case description ("descr" metadata property). > The revision number means nothing to readers. People running the test > suite won't see the comment at all, but they will see the test case > name all the time and they may see the description depending on the > reporting format. > > For example, dup2__ebadf_when_2nd_arg_out_of_range would clearly > explain what this is. You could later put the revision number in the > "descr" property with a textual explanation if so desired. > > Cheers Yes, I see your point. I'll fix this. -- Peter