[Lustre-discuss] Metadata storage in test script files
chris at whamcloud.com
Wed May 2 09:06:34 PDT 2012
On 02/05/2012 16:44, Roman wrote:
>> I think this is something that needs to live outside the test metadata
>> being described here. The definition of "golden configuration" is
>> hard to define, and depends heavily on factors that change from one
>> environment to the next.
> We could separate dynamic and static metadata. But it will be good if
> both set of data use one engine and storage type with just different
I think we all understand the static metadata and I believe that the
data in my original examples is static data. This data relates to a
version of the test scripts and so can live as part of the test script
managed using the same git mechanisms.
Could you explain what you mean by dynamic data so that we can all
understand exactly what you are suggesting we store.
> Also, I don't see good way to use 'metadata inheritance' way in shell
> without adding pretty unclear shell code, so switch to metadata usage
> should be one-monent or test framework just ignore it and metadata
> became just static text for external scripts.
I'm not sure if there is a place for inheritance in this particular
situation but if there is then we need to be clear of one thing. There
can be no implicit inheritance for these scripts. I.e. We can't have a
single attribute at the top of a file that applies to all tests. The
reason for this is because one major reason for having metadata is that
we cause the data to be collected properly, each test needs to have the
data explicitly captured. If a test does not have the data captured then
we do not have any data - and no data is a fact (data) in itself, If a
test inherits data from another test then that must have be explicitly set.
We cannot allow sweeping inheritance that allows us to imagine we have
learnt something when actually we've just taken a short cut to give the
impression of knowledge.
More information about the lustre-discuss