Re: [Libguestfs] [PATCH 3/6] v2v:test:win: actually check the eventual layout
On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 03:19:21PM +0200, Pino Toscano wrote:
On Monday 05 October 2015 16:05:54 Roman Kagan wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 02:50:52PM +0200, Pino Toscano wrote:
> > On Monday 05 October 2015 15:40:03 Roman Kagan wrote:
> > > +{
> > > guestfish --ro -a $d/windows-sda -i <<EOF
> > > + trace 1
> > > is-dir "/Program Files/Red Hat/Firstboot"
> > > is-file "/Program Files/Red Hat/Firstboot/firstboot.bat"
> > > is-dir "/Program Files/Red Hat/Firstboot/scripts"
> > > is-dir "/Windows/Drivers/VirtIO"
> > > + trace 0
> > > EOF
> > > +} | {
> > > + ret=0
> > > + while read r; do
> > > + [ "$r" = "true" ] || ret=1
> > > + done
> > > + exit $ret
> > > +}
> >
> > Note we have tests that check the output of guestfish -- for example,
> > fish/test-edit.sh (it is not the only one). I guess you could turn this
> > test to do the same, which could be also easier to expand if there will
> > be added more commands that output things different than "true".
>
> Yes I have seen it but exactly because I foresee nothing but "true" in
> guestfish's output I want to avoid tedious beancounting when maintaining
> the expected result string.
Never say never... really, better make it slightly more generic, so
expanding it later is no hassle.
It sure is. E.g. in another patch in the series I add more is-file
commands here, and I generate them with a shell "for" loop; a constant
string for the expected reply with a dozen of "true" lines would look
weird IMO.
Also, comparing to the exact output expected is a check more that we
got the number of lines expected.
This is rather a check for guestfish which we assume already tested
here.
Roman.