Open JonathanWoollett-Light opened 1 year ago
I don't really think we need to test every single log message (or even just this one specifically, because why this one specifically?). I also feel like this one in particular will be hard to test because I'm not even sure how to setup a test case that causes the getrlimit
or dup2
syscall to fail.
I don't really think we need to test every single log message
I don't disagree. Its not really worth the effort as anything beyond an on-boarding task. But it still brings a very small amount of value, so as a task a contributor might take when learning Firecracker it could make sense.
because why this one specifically?
Got to start somewhere.
I also feel like this one in particular will be hard to test because I'm not even sure how to setup a test case that causes the getrlimit or dup2 syscall to fail.
All the more reason to test it.
Agree with @roypat, this sounds more like a unit test where we can mock the result of a syscall.
Hello!
We are students from the University of Texas at Austin taking a virtualization course (cs360v) looking for opportunities to contribute to an open source project for class credit.
Could I be assigned to this?
@Ecazares15 Hi, it would be great if you could contribute to this issue. Feel free to just post a PR next time you don't need to ask.
@Ecazares15 I would hold off on working on this right now, we are re-evaluating if we want this change, I've marked the issue as parked for now.
We test some logs but not all. We do not exactly match all log outputs from all tests.
A specific gap in this testing can be seen in https://github.com/firecracker-microvm/firecracker/pull/4047#discussion_r1342430678, this gap should be tested such that if it is changed accidentally in the future a test will fail.
This log:
See https://github.com/firecracker-microvm/firecracker/blob/main/src/firecracker/src/main.rs#L116