[PATCH i-g-t 1/3] igt_hook: Add feature

[Kamil Konieczny]

Hi Gustavo,
On 2024-05-15 at 14:35:55 -0300, Gustavo Sousa wrote:
> Quoting Kamil Konieczny (2024-05-15 14:10:55-03:00)
> >Hi Gustavo,
> >On 2024-05-09 at 12:24:29 -0300, Gustavo Sousa wrote:
> >> For development purposes, sometimes it is useful to have a way of
> >> running custom scripts at certain points of test executions. A
> >> real-world example I bumped into recently is to collect information from
> >> sysfs before and after running each entry of a testlist.
> >> 
> >> While it is possible for the user to handcraft a script that calls each
> >> test with the correct actions before and after execution, we can provide
> >> a better experience by adding built-in support for running hooks during
> >> test execution.
> >> 
> >> That would be even better when adding the same kind of support for
> >> igt_runner (which is done in an upcoming change), since the user can
> >> also nicely resume with igt_resume with the hook already setup in case a
> >> crash happens during execution of the test list.
> >> 
> >> As such provide implement support for hooks, integrate it into
> >> igt_core and expose the functionality via --hook CLI option on test
> >> executables.
> >
> >Hmm, why not just a pre-hook@ and post-hook@ in testlist itself?
> >It will be easier to handle - just more parsing.
> 
> How would that work with respect to filters? The current proposal allows
> something filtering the events to be tracked. For example, one can use
> `--hook "pre-test,pre-dyn-subtest:echo hello"` to run the command only
> before test binary starts and before each dynamic subtest.
> 
> Also, there are cases where a testlist is not really used. Examples are
> calling a test binary directly or calling igt_runner without
> --test-list. So, while I believe we could consider support for
> describing hooks in testlist, I do not think that would be a substitute
> for the --hook option.
> 
> On a personal note, my current use case for hooks is more towards
> debugging, so for me it is more convenient to have a --hook option than
> having to make a copy of a testlist only to add the hook instructions
> there.
> 
> --
> Gustavo Sousa
> 
> >
> >Added Petri to cc.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Kamil
> >

Ok, that makes sense, I will look into your patches later (maybe next week).
In meantime please look into GitLab failure here:
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/gfx-ci/igt-ci-tags/-/jobs/58540606

Regards,
Kamil