Project

General

Profile

Actions

action #88452

closed

script_run syntax error when & is at the end of command

Added by ph03nix almost 4 years ago. Updated over 3 years ago.

Status:
Resolved
Priority:
Low
Assignee:
Category:
Feature requests
Target version:
Start date:
2021-02-04
Due date:
2021-04-15
% Done:

0%

Estimated time:

Description

script_run and assert_script_run cause a preventable bash syntax error, when there is a '&' at the end of the command (run in background).
A solution would be to remove the ';' for the serial handling when the command terminates with ';' or '&'.

This is a (low priority) feature request to do so, to make writing tests in openQA more user friendly.

Observation

Let's assume I want to do the following

assert_script_run('sleep 30 &')

This fails with a bash syntax error, because we add the return code handling at the end of the command in the form

; echo BLABLA-$?- > /dev/serial

Which results in a command like the following:

$ sleep 30 & ; echo 12345-$?- > /dev/serial

Since '&' and ';' are terminators for bash, between the two is an empty command, which is not allowed.

Solution

If there is a terminator at the end of a script_run or assert_script_run command, omit the ';' before the echo '12345-$?- > /dev/serial'

$ sleep 30 & ; echo 12345-$?- > /dev/serial               # Syntax error
$ sleep 30 & echo 12345-$?- > /dev/serial                 # OK!

Current workarounds

I know of two possible workarounds, which are done in openQA tests:

First, enclose the command within brackets. This works but it creates a new context for the commands within the brackets, so e.g. 'jobs' or 'wait' will not work here.

assert_script_run('( sleep 30 & )');
assert_script_run('wait');         # doesn't see sleep 30 and will thus not wait for it

Second, add a true at the end of the script. This would work but most people use the first solution without being aware of the consequences. Indeed, this is the whole reason why I write this feature request :-)

assert_script_run('( sleep 30 & true');
assert_script_run('wait');         # will work
Actions #1

Updated by ph03nix almost 4 years ago

The main goal of this feature request is to make commands like the following possible

assert_script_run('wget ... &');     # Or whatever other command you want
assert_script_run('wget ... &');     # Or whatever other command you want
assert_script_run('wait');
Actions #2

Updated by ph03nix almost 4 years ago

Btw. in the case anyone wonders "why on Earth would anyone ever want to do that": We use this to install and update our virtualization guests in parallel:

# Install guests
assert_script_run("virt-install ... & true ") foreach (keys %virt_autotest::common::guests);
assert_script_run("wait", timeout => 3000);
# [...]

# Update guests
foreach my $guest (keys %virt_autotest::common::guests) 
    # [...]
    assert_script_run("ssh root\@$guest 'zypper ref && zypper -n dup' </dev/null >$guest.txt 2>&1 & true");
}
assert_script_run("wait", timeout => 1200);
Actions #3

Updated by okurz almost 4 years ago

It should be possible to use

assert_script_run('(wget ... &)');

right?

Actions #4

Updated by ph03nix almost 4 years ago

okurz wrote:

It should be possible to use

assert_script_run('(wget ... &)');

right?

That will work, but you will not be able to wait for those jobs. This means, while this the job is scheduled in the background, a 'wait' will fail:

assert_script_run('(wget ... &)'); # will work
assert_script_run('(wget ... &)'); # will work
assert_script_run('(wget ... &)'); # will work
assert_script_run('wait');         # will NOT wait for the previous wget

Perhaps the following snippet is more useful to illustrate the problem:

( sleep 30 & ); jobs                    # will not list anything
( sleep 30 & ); wait                    # will not wait for sleep
sleep 30 & jobs                         # works
sleep 30 & wait                         # lists sleep
Actions #5

Updated by tinita almost 4 years ago

Another idea (instead of looking for & or ; in the command) could be to add a parameter to assert_script_run, e.g. background => 1.

Actions #6

Updated by okurz almost 4 years ago

Well, I am open for the proposal, I just wonder if that is really making things more clear to users.

Two other things that I think will work, please confirm if it does do what you want or not:

  1. Use type_string instead of script_run
  2. Instead of sleep 1&, call sleep 1&:
Actions #7

Updated by ph03nix almost 4 years ago

okurz wrote:

Well, I am open for the proposal, I just wonder if that is really making things more clear to users.

Two other things that I think will work, please confirm if it does do what you want or not:

  1. Use type_string instead of script_run
  2. Instead of sleep 1&, call sleep 1&:

Both should work, and I am sure that all openQA devs have figured a way to deal with background jobs already.

The feature request aims at a different purpose: To make the behaviour of assert_script_run and script_run be closer to the behaviour of bash, or more specifically, to be able to terminate a command with & without getting a syntax error. I think that could lower the bar a bit for fresh users/devs, because this is an issue, where everyone stumbles across at some point.

Actions #8

Updated by livdywan almost 4 years ago

ph03nix wrote:

Update guests

foreach my $guest (keys %virt_autotest::common::guests)
# [...]
assert_script_run("ssh root\@$guest 'zypper ref && zypper -n dup' $guest.txt 2>&1 & true");
}
assert_script_run("wait", timeout => 1200);

I feel like what you may actually want here is for assert_script_run to return an ID that you can wait on.

Actions #9

Updated by okurz almost 4 years ago

  • Status changed from New to Feedback
  • Assignee set to okurz
  • Target version changed from future to Ready

ph03nix wrote:

The feature request aims at a different purpose: To make the behaviour of assert_script_run and script_run be closer to the behaviour of bash, or more specifically, to be able to terminate a command with & without getting a syntax error. I think that could lower the bar a bit for fresh users/devs, because this is an issue, where everyone stumbles across at some point.

Absolutely. I prepared a quick PR myself now: https://github.com/os-autoinst/os-autoinst/pull/1619

Actions #10

Updated by livdywan almost 4 years ago

okurz wrote:

Absolutely. I prepared a quick PR myself now: https://github.com/os-autoinst/os-autoinst/pull/1619

The PR modifies the internal handling of ; in ... so that this specific case can work:

assert_script_run 'sleep 30 &'

Discussion in the comments led to a counter-proposal for a new function enter_string, and updating of existing uses to prevent people from habitually trying to stick to assert_script_run even when it's not the best option.

Actions #11

Updated by okurz almost 4 years ago

Yeah I am still torn. To me enter_string sounds highly ambiguous and easy to confuse with type_string.

Actions #12

Updated by okurz almost 4 years ago

  • Due date set to 2021-03-15

Updated https://github.com/os-autoinst/os-autoinst/pull/1619 after the initial discussion

Actions #13

Updated by okurz almost 4 years ago

  • Status changed from Feedback to In Progress
Actions #14

Updated by okurz almost 4 years ago

PR merged. Now we (or I) can try to come up with a corresponding change for os-autoinst-distri-opensuse itself to show how the new function can be used:

https://github.com/os-autoinst/os-autoinst-distri-opensuse/pull/12086

Actions #15

Updated by okurz almost 4 years ago

  • Status changed from In Progress to Feedback

PR ready

Actions #16

Updated by okurz almost 4 years ago

  • Due date changed from 2021-03-15 to 2021-03-23

No feedback within a week. I provided a reminder within https://chat.suse.de/channel/testing?msg=QgM8WLg4WMRMfeJSZ and will wait roughly one more week.

Actions #17

Updated by livdywan almost 4 years ago

The PR introducing enter_cmd was merged. os-autoinst#os-autoinst#1632 proposes background_script_run which takes a command and returns the PID as well

Actions #18

Updated by livdywan over 3 years ago

  • Status changed from Feedback to Resolved

Both PRs got merged - I assume this is done

Actions #19

Updated by okurz over 3 years ago

  • Due date changed from 2021-03-23 to 2021-04-01
  • Status changed from Resolved to Workable

Please don't do too much for what assignees are responsible for doing themselves. Actually the work is not yet done as there is still https://github.com/os-autoinst/os-autoinst-distri-opensuse/pull/12086 open. As that PR involves a lot of changes I wanted to have more feedback but have not received it so I waited a bit longer. I set the due date myself as reminder. I think I can follow up in the next days.

Actions #20

Updated by okurz over 3 years ago

  • Due date changed from 2021-04-01 to 2021-04-15
  • Status changed from Workable to Feedback

Updated https://github.com/os-autoinst/os-autoinst-distri-opensuse/pull/12086 . Awaiting feedback from test maintainers, pinged @os-autoinst/tests-maintainer for review in github.

Actions #21

Updated by okurz over 3 years ago

  • Status changed from Feedback to Resolved
Actions

Also available in: Atom PDF