From: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>

The functional testing frameworks also supports assets that are
identified by their sha512 checksum (instead of only using sha25),
and at least one of the tests (tests/functional/ppc64/test_fadump.py)
is already using such a checksum, so adjust the clean_functional_cache
script to support these checksums, too.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
---
 scripts/clean_functional_cache.py | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/scripts/clean_functional_cache.py b/scripts/clean_functional_cache.py
index c3370ffbb87..f0342b4b438 100755
--- a/scripts/clean_functional_cache.py
+++ b/scripts/clean_functional_cache.py
@@ -24,8 +24,8 @@
 os.chdir(cache_dir)
 
 for file in cache_dir.iterdir():
-    # Only consider the files that use a sha256 as filename:
-    if len(file.name) != 64:
+    # Only consider the files that use a sha256 or sha512 as filename:
+    if len(file.name) != 64 and len(file.name) != 128:
         continue
 
     try:
-- 
2.52.0

On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 01:18:49PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> From: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
> 
> The functional testing frameworks also supports assets that are
> identified by their sha512 checksum (instead of only using sha25),
> and at least one of the tests (tests/functional/ppc64/test_fadump.py)
> is already using such a checksum, so adjust the clean_functional_cache
> script to support these checksums, too.

I wrote this code to match what we had in Avocado, but now I'm really
struggling to justify why we should choose different checksum algorithms
per asset. With only 1 test diverging from sha256, I'd rather we just
dropped sha512 support 

> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
> ---
>  scripts/clean_functional_cache.py | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/scripts/clean_functional_cache.py b/scripts/clean_functional_cache.py
> index c3370ffbb87..f0342b4b438 100755
> --- a/scripts/clean_functional_cache.py
> +++ b/scripts/clean_functional_cache.py
> @@ -24,8 +24,8 @@
>  os.chdir(cache_dir)
>  
>  for file in cache_dir.iterdir():
> -    # Only consider the files that use a sha256 as filename:
> -    if len(file.name) != 64:
> +    # Only consider the files that use a sha256 or sha512 as filename:
> +    if len(file.name) != 64 and len(file.name) != 128:
>          continue
>  
>      try:
> -- 
> 2.52.0
> 

With regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|

On 20/01/2026 14.02, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 01:18:49PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> From: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
>>
>> The functional testing frameworks also supports assets that are
>> identified by their sha512 checksum (instead of only using sha25),
>> and at least one of the tests (tests/functional/ppc64/test_fadump.py)
>> is already using such a checksum, so adjust the clean_functional_cache
>> script to support these checksums, too.
> 
> I wrote this code to match what we had in Avocado, but now I'm really
> struggling to justify why we should choose different checksum algorithms
> per asset. With only 1 test diverging from sha256, I'd rather we just
> dropped sha512 support

Fine for me, too ... could you suggest a patch, or want me to do it?

  Thomas

On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 03:10:34PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 20/01/2026 14.02, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 01:18:49PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > > From: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
> > > 
> > > The functional testing frameworks also supports assets that are
> > > identified by their sha512 checksum (instead of only using sha25),
> > > and at least one of the tests (tests/functional/ppc64/test_fadump.py)
> > > is already using such a checksum, so adjust the clean_functional_cache
> > > script to support these checksums, too.
> > 
> > I wrote this code to match what we had in Avocado, but now I'm really
> > struggling to justify why we should choose different checksum algorithms
> > per asset. With only 1 test diverging from sha256, I'd rather we just
> > dropped sha512 support
> 
> Fine for me, too ... could you suggest a patch, or want me to do it?

I'll let you do it

With regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|