On 11/12/18 5:49 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 09.11.2018 um 23:12 hat Cleber Rosa geschrieben: >> The initial goal of this RFC is to get feedback on tests not specific >> to the QEMU main binary, but specific to other components such as >> qemu-img. >> >> For this experiment, a small issue with the zero and negative number >> of I/O operations given to the bench command was chosen. > > Any reason why this shouldn't be in qemu-iotests? > > Kevin >
Hi Kevin, This is indeed one of the comments I was expecting to receive. AFAIK, there's nothing that prevents such a *simple* test to be written as a qemu-iotest. Having said that, one of the things we're trying to achieve with "tests/acceptance" is that a individual developer or maintainer, should be able to run a subset of tests that he/she cares about. Suppose that this developer is working on a "snapshot" related feature, and wants to run tests that cover both "qemu-img snapshot" and then tests interacting with a guest running on a snapshotted image. By using the tags mechanism, one could run: $ avocado run -t snapshot tests/acceptance And run all tests related to snapshot. This is one of the reasons for maybe allowing the type of test proposed here to live under "tests/acceptance". Others include: * No numbering conflicts when naming tests * More descriptive tests names and metadata * No "context switch" for people also writing acceptance tests * The various utility APIs available in both the Test class and on avocado.utils BTW, since most tests Today exist outside of "tests/acceptance", that may be also be solved in a great part by adding support in the (Avocado) test runner about some metadata in tests such qemu-iotests. Cheers, - Cleber.
