[Swan-dev] sanitize.sh vs re-sanitize.sh (vs swantest.sh)

[Andrew Cagney]

On 25 May 2015 at 18:00, Antony Antony <antony at phenome.org> wrote:

> On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 04:38:18PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > Just fyi,
> >
> > I've done some merging into re-sanitize.sh:
> >
> > - it leaves empty diffs around, somewhat annoying but useful - another
> way
> > to verify things are working
> > - exits non-zero if it thinks the test failed
> > - checks for more failure conditions
> >
> > after more testing we can look at it replacing sanitize.sh
>
> please not yet!
>
> why not swantest do the grep and those checks?
>

re-sanitize.sh and pluto-testlist-scan.sh are nice compact scripts, each
with a singular job.
It might be better to just keep them separate (on the other hand, having
the decision that a test passed in multiple places isn't good).

my intention is to move towards python one. that is why swantest has check
> for core file... expect...
> . swantest create json, to generate html, and  table.txt for one line
> summary. shell scripts are not ideal to create json files.
>
>

> > > re-sanitize.sh
> > >  - run from pluto-testlist-scan.sh (nice script)
> ..
> ..
>
> > > swantest
> > >  - checks for for crashes and assert failures
>
> swantest also produce table.txt file which will be consitant with json
> file and similar to pluto-testlist-scan.sh's output.
>

Yes, it would be nice to be able to run that standalone.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.libreswan.org/pipermail/swan-dev/attachments/20150526/d9937d4d/attachment.html>