Because of course ternary operators would cause problems.
The two problem:
LFS_ASSERT((exists) ? !err : err == LFS_ERR_NOENT);
lfsr_file_sync(&lfs, &file) => (zombie) ? 0 : LFS_ERR_NOENT;
We could work around these with parentheses, but with different assert
parsers floating around this issue is likely to crop up again in the
future.
Fortunately this just required separate "sep" vs "term" rules and a bit
more strict parsing.
test_wl is intended to test wear-leveling, although right now that just
involves heavy-duty fuzz tests with extremely low block_recycles.
What may be more interesting is the addition of aggressive orphan/zombie
tests:
- test_forphans_orphanzombie_fuzz
- test_forphans_orphanzombiedir_fuzz
- test_wl_orphanzombie_fuzz
- test_wl_orphanzombiedir_fuzz
These tests mix random file/dir operations while keeping random file
handles open, creating a complex environment for hitting weird orphan/
zombie corner cases.
And they did find a bug! We were asserting on LFS_ERR_RANGE when
migrating shrubs/sprouts during lfsr_mdir_commit__. The tricky thing
about lfsr_mdir_commit__ is that we need to expect LFS_ERR_RANGE from
any append operations, since this is what trigger mdir compaction. This
is especially tricky since LFS_ERR_RANGE is a hard error in most other
functions.
Easy fix. lfsr_mdir_commit__ contains no more LFS_ERR_RANGE asserts.
With these tests hopefully that's the last time we see this mistake.
This better matches test_dirs/test_files.
I guess the rule is singular for filesystem building blocks (test_rbyd,
test_btree, test_mtree, etc), plural for filesystem entries (test_dirs,
test_files, test_forphans, etc)?
Christopher Haster