23/01/2024 04:42, Honnappa Nagarahalli: > > 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?
There is a misunderstanding here. I suggest to take this proposal as an example of the simplicity to reach. But I agree with you it is more reasonnable to continue with the Python path. > 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? After the latest CI meeting we thought about writing a simple text case in Python with some virtual functions which would abstract all the boilerplate code, so it would have the same level of simplicity as this YAML proposal. > > 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.
