Hi Geliang,
On 26/02/2024 10:43, Geliang Tang wrote:
> From: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn>
>
> This patch moves test_fail out of check_expected_one(), since test_fail
> is a private function in userspace_pm.sh, and check_expected_one will be
> exported in mptcp_lib.sh in the next commit.
>
> Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/net/mptcp/userspace_pm.sh | 11 +++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/mptcp/userspace_pm.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/net/mptcp/userspace_pm.sh
> index 27f308601005..473639a8009f 100755
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/mptcp/userspace_pm.sh
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/mptcp/userspace_pm.sh
> @@ -247,7 +247,7 @@ check_expected_one()
>
> if [ "${prev_ret}" = "0" ]
> then
> - test_fail
I think, the goal to do it here was to print "FAIL", then the details.
> + return 2
Just return 1, no?
> fi
>
> _printf "\tExpected value for '%s': '%s', got '%s'.\n" \
What's the output now in case of issue? Does it still make sense to use
the '\t' here at the beginning?
> @@ -263,13 +263,20 @@ check_expected()
>
> for var in "${@}"
> do
> - check_expected_one "${var}" "${rc}" || rc=1
> + check_expected_one "${var}" "${rc}" || rc="${?}"
> + if [ "${rc}" -eq 2 ]
> + then
> + break
Why breaking? If you break, you only print one error, not all like before.
Please check the behaviour in case of error before and after the
modification.
> + fi
> done
>
> if [ ${rc} -eq 0 ]
> then
> test_pass
> return 0
> + elif [ "${rc}" -eq 2 ]
> + then
> + test_fail
Just 'test_fail' after the 'if'.
> fi
>
> return 1
Cheers,
Matt
--
Sponsored by the NGI0 Core fund.