From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C1FDBA25E for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 10:36:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id DD6081C742 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 10:36:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 10:36:15 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1A90D48AC0 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 10:36:15 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 10:36:08 +0100 From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= To: Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20240305150758.252669-1-m.carrara@proxmox.com> <20240305150758.252669-14-m.carrara@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20240305150758.252669-14-m.carrara@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: astroid/0.16.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) Message-Id: <1710840576.a2b3gxz5ut.astroid@yuna.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.064 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [proxmox.com] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v4 pve-storage 13/16] test: add tests for 'ceph.conf' parser and writer X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 09:36:17 -0000 On March 5, 2024 4:07 pm, Max Carrara wrote: > These tests attempt to cover all syntax quirks that the format of > 'ceph.conf' currently allows. >=20 > One known exception however is the handling of "quoted" and "unquoted" > strings, as Ceph's own parser appears to not actually differ between > them either. Curiously, if a "quoted string" isn't able to be > parsed by Ceph's implementation, it goes on to parse it as an > "unquoted string" anyway. [0] In both cases, the result is the same - > the string is parsed with quotes. I don't think this is true - quoted strings do behave differently w.r.t. in-line comments and line continuations inside the quoted string (both break parsing on the ceph side ;)), and in general a missing closing quote seems to be fatal. > Each test case is first tested against the parser - if the resulting > hash matches the expected hash, it is consequently passed into the > writer. The writer's result is then parsed another time and compared > against the expected hash once more. I think it would make a lot of sense to also test our parser against `ceph-conf -c TEST_INPUT_FILE [--name X.Y] --show-config-value KEY` in particular for all the edge cases surrounding quoting and so on it might help find some more discrepancies, but also help keeping current with ceph changes.. > [0]: https://git.proxmox.com/?p=3Dceph.git;a=3Dblob;f=3Dceph/src/common/C= onfUtils.cc;h=3D2f78fd02bf9e27467275752e6f3bca0c5e3946ce;hb=3Drefs/heads/ma= ster#l189 >=20 > Signed-off-by: Max Carrara