> We want to include your server tester in a script that's running a
> battery of NFSv4 tests, ...
Good.
>To
> that end, I'm trying to consolidate the code as much as possible, and I'm
> wondering if there's any reason NOT to merge the test_tree_net.py code
> with the main nfs4st.py code. Then it would just recreate the test_tree
> each time, no hassle. The only reason I can see that this would be a bad
> idea is if the server tester writes a log or something into the test tree.
> What are your thoughts?
Well, in principle test_tree_net could be integrated into nfs4st.py. The
important thing is that all errors are detected. If test_tree_net fails to
setup the test tree, the results from nfs4st.py won't be valid. Currently,
test_tree_net does not have as many error checks as one would wish.
My experience from Cthon was also that it takes some tweaking before it's
possible to run test_tree_net. As far as I know, NetApp Filers still fails
on test_tree_net.
So, currently test_tree_net must probably be "supervised", at least for
untested servers. If you know that test_tree_net works with the servers
you are testing, it is probably safe just to make a script that runs
test_tree_net before nfs4st.py. If you find out that it does indeed work
with most servers, then maybe it is a good idea to integrate test_tree_net
into nfs4st after all.
> Along the same lines - if there's nothing important stored in the test
> tree after the suites are run, then it probably would also make sense to
> clean up and just destroy the tree at the end of a server test, right?
Yes, that's ok, as long as you remember to re-create the tree before
running nfs4st again.
> Finally, you say in your documentation that test_tree.py is obsolete,
> and that test_tree_net.py is all that is needed - can we just throw away
> test_tree.py, then, to avoid confusion?
Probably. There may still be use for test_tree.py: If it's impossible to
run test_tree_net.py against some server, and this server supports running
Python scripts like test_tree.py locally, then test_tree.py can be used as
a substitute for test_tree_net.py. This would make it possible to run
nfs4st even though the server is that broken that test_tree_net.py won't
succeed.
The problem is that test_tree.py is outdated and probably incompatible
with nfs4st.py nowadays :-) Actually, I'm not sure.
The ultimate solution, I guess, is to define the test tree in some kind of
language, which can be used as input file either to a "network test tree
creator" (like test_tree_net) or a "local test tree creator" (like
test_tree). Or what do you think?
>I noticed that it's still
> referenced in Makefile.pychecker and setup.py. Let me know.
test_tree_net.py should be added to Makefile.pychecker and setup.py.
test_tree.py should be removed, eventually.
--
Peter Åstrand Telephone: +46-13-21 46 00
Cendio Systems E-mail: peter(a)cendio.se
Teknikringen 3
583 30 Linköping
Sweden
