The basic idea of running multiple commands within a single shell script was what I called a subtest (for lack of a better word). So: test: suffix: restart requires: hdf5 args: -run_type test -refinement_limit 0.0 -bc_type dirichlet -interpolate 1 -petscspace_order 1 test: args: -dm_view hdf5:sol.h5 -vec_view hdf5:sol.h5::append test: args: -f sol.h5 -restart The args in the subtest inherit from the parent test. This seems to be generally useful as a testing idiom in petsc tests as this example nicely shows. Each mpiexec would be tested separately and reported separately. This would give you want you want, and should work as is. Tobin pointed out that I broke the for loops and some of the subtest functionality in some of the other feature implementations. We have come to consensus (right, Tobin?) on the desired functionality and implementation. A pull request is planned this week. It doesn't affect this directly, but should have some minor improvements (like in the reporting). Scott On 2/6/17 7:10 AM, Matthew Knepley wrote:
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Jed Brown <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Barry Smith <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> writes:
> test: > suffix: restart_0 > requires: hdf5 > args: -run_type test -refinement_limit 0.0 -bc_type dirichlet -interpolate 1 -petscspace_order 1 -dm_view hdf5:sol.h5 -vec_view hdf5:sol.h5::append > > test: > suffix: restart_1 > requires: hdf5 > args: -run_type test -refinement_limit 0.0 -bc_type dirichlet -interpolate 1 -petscspace_order 1 -f sol.h5 -restart > > See a problem? > > Should the same run of the example view the files and then load them back in? versus trying to read in a data file from another run that may not even have been created before and even if it was, the file was definitely created in a different directory?
So if write only is broken, do you want both to fail? I think it's better to read and write separately, with comparison using h5diff, since that independently tests read vs write and establishes backward compatibility, which you'd really like the test system to make you deal with explicitly.
I know the test is broken, but I did already mail the list about this and was waiting for an answer to be worked out.
I agree with Satish that running two commands would be great. I could rewrite the example to both write and load it, but it would complicate it. Also, I am trying to get the pattern I expect the user to follow for checkpointing.
Matt
-- What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead. -- Norbert Wiener
-- Tech-X Corporation [email protected] 5621 Arapahoe Ave, Suite A Phone: (720) 974-1841 Boulder, CO 80303 Fax: (303) 448-7756