<snip> > > 08/01/2024 13:10, Luca Vizzarro: > > Your proposal sounds rather interesting. Certainly enabling DTS to > > accept YAML-written tests sounds more developer-friendly and should > > enable quicker test-writing. As this is an extra feature though – and > > a nice-to-have, it should definitely be discussed in the DTS meetings > > as Honnappa suggested already. > > I would not classify this idea as "nice-to-have". > I would split this proposal in 2 parts: > 1/ YAML is an implementation alternative. > 2/ Being able to write a test with a small number of lines, > reusing some commands from existing tools, > should be our "must-have" common goal. > > Others have mentioned that YAML may not be suitable in complex cases, and > that it would be an additional language for test writing. > I personnaly think we should focus on a single path which is easy to read and > maintain. I think we are digressing from the plan we had put forward if we have to go down this path. We should understand what it means by going down the YAML format. Also, what would happen if there is another innovation in 3 months?
We already have scatter-gather test suite ported to DPDK repo and has undergone review in the community. In the last meeting we went through a simple test case. Is it possible to write the scatter-gather test case in YAML and see how they compare? > For the configuration side, YAML is already used in DTS. > For the test suite logic, do you think we can achieve the same simplicity with > some Python code? > > We discussed how to progress with this proposal during the CI meeting last > week. > We need to check how it could look and what we can improve to reach this > goal. > Patrick proposes a meeting this Wednesday at 2pm UTC. >
