-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 164
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
feat(tests): new e2e tests [4/N] #1763
Conversation
cf32f8d
to
43733cb
Compare
Signed-off-by: Roberto Scolaro <roberto.scolaro21@gmail.com>
43733cb
to
bd00f4c
Compare
/milestone 0.15.0 |
@FedeDP: The provided milestone is not valid for this repository. Milestones in this repository: [ Use In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
/milestone 0.16.0 |
uint16_t type = e->get_type(); | ||
std::string name(e->get_name()); | ||
|
||
#if defined(__x86_64__) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't really like that we are adding per-architecture cases here... since we are supporting more and more architectures in libs i fear these tests will soon become a real mess.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I mean: if we have the need to add per-architecture code, it seems we are not actually working at the libsinsp
level, since all the arch-dependent code should be tested in drivers IMHO.
cc @Andreagit97
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't particularly like my solution but, if we want to stick to the libc wrappers, I think is the only one. Otherwise we can explicitly use the syscall number.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I understanrd your point; but i am starting to feel that some of these tests would be better suited for the drivers testing framework :/
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think that this is good point for some of them: in particular the ones where we don't test anything except the syscall (e.g. sys_call_test.stat
). For the other ones setting the dropping mode I'm not super sure.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
On the other hand using the libc wrapper on sys_call_test.stat
it was instrumental to catch a missing syscall.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
/approve
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: ddab90029f875979fda5fa06a37e012e8e1369a7
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: FedeDP, jasondellaluce, therealbobo The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
What type of PR is this?
/kind feature
Any specific area of the project related to this PR?
/area tests
Does this PR require a change in the driver versions?
What this PR does / why we need it:
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: