[LTP] [PATCH v1] Port `getxattr01.c` to new test API

[Andrea Cervesato]

Hi!

On 9/18/23 14:50, Marius Kittler wrote:
> Am Freitag, 15. September 2023, 16:10:11 CEST schrieb Andrea Cervesato via
> ltp:
>>> +
>>> +	/* create test file and set xattr */
>>> +	struct test_case *tc = &tcases[i];
>>> +	snprintf(tc->fname, BUFSIZ, "getxattr01testfile-%u", i);
>>> +	int fd = SAFE_CREAT(tc->fname, 0644);
>>> +	SAFE_CLOSE(fd);
>>> +	TEST(setxattr(tc->fname, XATTR_TEST_KEY, XATTR_TEST_VALUE,
>>> +				  strlen(XATTR_TEST_VALUE),
> XATTR_CREATE));
>> Here you can use TST_EXP_PASS instead of TEST
>>
> I wouldn't know how. If this function fails with ENOTSUP specifically, then the
> result should be TCONF. I don't think using TST_EXP_PASS allows that.
> Additionally, if this function fails the remaining tests for this iteration
> should be skipped.
>
>>> +
>>> +	/* read xattr back */
>>> +	TEST(getxattr(tc->fname, tc->key, tc->value, tc->size));
>>> +	if (TST_ERR == tc->exp_err) {
>>> +		tst_res(TPASS | TTERRNO, "expected getxattr() return
> code");
>>> +	} else {
>>> +		tst_res(TFAIL | TTERRNO, "unexpected getxattr()
> return code"
>>> +				" - expected errno %d", tc-
>> exp_err);
>>>    	}
>> Also here you can use TST_EXP_PASS instead of TEST
> Also here I wouldn't know how that is possible. There are test cases where an
> error is actually expected.

If an error is expected you can use TST_EXP_FAIL, but yes, taking a 
closer look at the code,
this case is a bit more specific and TEST can be used.

>
>>> -	tst_brkm(TCONF, NULL, "<sys/xattr.h> does not exist.");
>>> +#ifdef HAVE_SYS_XATTR_H
>>> +	char *cwd = SAFE_GETCWD(NULL, 0);
>>> +	workdir = SAFE_MALLOC(strlen(cwd) + strlen(MNTPOINT) + 2);
>>> +	sprintf(workdir, "%s/%s", cwd, MNTPOINT);
>>> +	free(cwd);
>> Here you can just SAFE_TOUCH the file if you aim to create one.
>>
> Using SAFE_TOUCH() makes sense but I guess the file creation needs to be in
> run() because a file needs to be created per mount. Additionally, one then had
> to create a loop for all test cases.
>
>> In your case, to understand LTP API a bit better, I would take
>> fxgetattr01 as reference, more or less.
> That test seems very similar, indeed. Do you want me to follow some patterns
> from there specifically? Note that this test also uses just "TEST(…)" similarly
> to my code.
>
> It does a simplification by using SAFE_FSETXATTR and here I could use
> SAFE_SETXATTR. However, then we would lose the ENOTSUP case which I'm not sure
> we want/should lose (especially since I'm mainly porting/refactoring it might
> not be desirable to remove behavior at the same time).
>
>
>
You can use fxgetattr01 as reference.
Beware of "make check" before sending the patch.

Andrea