Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 5/5] selftests/bpf: Add test for "bpftool feature" command

[Quentin Monnet]

2020-02-25 14:55 UTC+0100 ~ Michal Rostecki <mrostecki@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> On 2/21/20 12:28 PM, Quentin Monnet wrote:
> > > +ÂÂÂ @default_iface
> > > +ÂÂÂ def test_feature_dev(self, iface):
> > > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ expected_patterns = [
> > > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ SECTION_SYSCALL_CONFIG_PATTERN,
> > > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ SECTION_PROGRAM_TYPES_PATTERN,
> > > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ SECTION_MAP_TYPES_PATTERN,
> > > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ SECTION_HELPERS_PATTERN,
> > > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ SECTION_MISC_PATTERN,
> > > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ ]
> >
> > Mixed feeling on the tests with plain output, as we keep telling people
> > that plain output should not be parsed (not reliable, may change). But
> > if you want to run one or two tests with it, why not, I guess.
>
> I thought about that and yes, testing the plain output is probably
> redundant and makes those tests less readable. However, the only plain
> output test which I would like to keep there is test_feature_macros -
> because I guess that we are not planning to change names or patterns of
> generated macros (or if so, we should test that change).

I did not mentally include the header/macros output in âplain outputâ, 
but yeah I guess I was not explicit on this one. So: Agreed, with 
âmacrosâ it should not change and it is welcome in the tests, feel free 
to keep it :)

Quentin