Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 15:44:14 -0500 From: Julio Merino <jmmv@freebsd.org> To: Peter Holm <peter@holm.cc> Cc: "freebsd-testing@freebsd.org" <freebsd-testing@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: My first ATF test Message-ID: <CAFY7cWDjyqf5%2BQn9YfdG4qOQ-bMpbEj7Our3o=X%2B7cRqMATCUw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20140225161129.GA59741@x2.osted.lan> References: <20140225161129.GA59741@x2.osted.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Peter Holm <peter@holm.cc> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAFY7cWDjyqf5%2BQn9YfdG4qOQ-bMpbEj7Our3o=X%2B7cRqMATCUw>