On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 04:41:16PM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote: > Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> writes: > > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 11:31:08PM +0530, Het Gala wrote: > >> I just wanted to highlight couple of pointers: > >> 1. though we are using 'channels' in the precopy tests for 'migrate' QAPI, > >> we > >> use the old uri for 'migrate-incoming' QAPI. > >> 2. We do not cover other 'channels' abi, only have tcp path tested. > >> > >> So, the TO-DOs could be: > >> 1. Omit the 4th patch here, which introduced postcopy qtests with > >> 'channels' > >> interface OR have 'channels' interface with other than tcp transport > >> (file, exec, vsock, etc) so as to cover different code paths. > >> 2. Extend channels interface to migrate-incoming QAPI for precopy qtests > > > > You can see whether Fabiano has anything to say, but what you proposed > > looks good to me. > > Ok, so what about we convert some of the 'plain' tests into channels to > cover all transports? > > - tcp: test_multifd_tcp_none (this one we already did) > - file: test_precopy_file > - unix: test_precopy_unix_plain > - exec: test_analyze_script > - fd: test_migrate_precopy_fd_socket > > Those^, plus the validate_uri that's already in next should cover > everything. > > We don't need to do this at once, by the way. > > Moreover: > > - leave all test strings untouched to preserve bisecting; > > - let's not bother adding "channels" and "uri" to the test string > anymore. The channels API should be taken for granted at this point, I > don't expect we start hitting bugs that will require us to run either > foo/uri/plain or foo/channels/plain, so there's not much point in > making the distinction.
Do you mean we can put "uri:" aside? Maybe I misunderstood.. The matrix previously was (I think.. when this series posted): [tcp, unix, file, exec, fd] x [uri, channels] x [precopy, postcopy] Drop postcopy as doesn't seem to have any special paths: [tcp, unix, file, exec, fd] x [uri, channels] So logically we should still cover these, right? Thanks, -- Peter Xu
