From: Andrew Hewus Fresh Subject: Re: fw_update(8) use local patterns and dmesg for testing To: Theo de Raadt Cc: tech@openbsd.org Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2024 20:17:51 -0800 On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 09:11:25PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote: > Andrew Hewus Fresh wrote: > > > Index: patterns.c > > =================================================================== > > RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.sbin/fw_update/patterns.c,v > > diff -u -p -r1.16 patterns.c > > --- patterns.c 30 Oct 2024 00:04:46 -0000 1.16 > > +++ patterns.c 23 Nov 2024 03:39:19 -0000 > > @@ -43,6 +43,18 @@ > > > > #define nitems(_a) (sizeof((_a)) / sizeof((_a)[0])) > > > > +/* > > + * Testing changes: > > + * > > + * For testing, fw_update(8) has a special case for when it is named > > + * "fw_update.sh" and "firmware_patterns" exists in the current > > + * directory. It uses those patterns instead of the default. If > > + * there is also a file called "dmesg" it will use that instead. > > + * > > + * `make firmware_patterns && ksh ./fw_update.sh` > > + * `scp other-host:/var/run/dmesg . && ksh ./fw_update.sh` > > + */ > > I dislike this intensely. > > Should we do the same in ls, for testing? > > How about for bgpd? Or some other random program? I don't need to list > 50 programs we could do this for, and it is all just complicated churn > which will eventually have a a bug. > > It's the wrong thing. This is a developer group. You install, then you test. > There may be only one person who wants this, and it's you. Noone else wants > this fragility. It is useful to me, so I will keep the patch around. I thought perhaps the iteration process for testing against a bsd.rd dmesg was worth the extra complexity, but it's not. I'll drop it.