On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 03:15:27PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> Move the mipsel replay tests from tests/avocado/replay_kernel.py to
> the functional framework. Since the functional tests should be run per
> target, we cannot stick all replay tests in one file. Thus let's add
> these tests to the file where we already use the same asset already.
Are the replay tests liable to impact running time much ?
The test timeouts are per-file, which could motivate
a separate test_mipsel_malta_replay.py file ?
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com>
> ---
> tests/avocado/replay_kernel.py | 54 ---------------------------
> tests/functional/meson.build | 1 +
> tests/functional/test_mipsel_malta.py | 30 +++++++++++++--
> 3 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 57 deletions(-)
> diff --git a/tests/functional/meson.build b/tests/functional/meson.build
> index b7719ab85f..7d233213c1 100644
> --- a/tests/functional/meson.build
> +++ b/tests/functional/meson.build
> @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ test_timeouts = {
> 'arm_sx1' : 360,
> 'intel_iommu': 300,
> 'mips_malta' : 120,
> + 'mipsel_malta' : 500,
snip
> +
> + @skipLongRuntime()
> + def test_replay_mips_malta32el_nanomips_4k(self):
> + self.do_test_replay_mips_malta32el_nanomips(self.ASSET_KERNEL_4K)
> +
> + @skipLongRuntime()
> + def test_replay_mips_malta32el_nanomips_16k_up(self):
> + self.do_test_replay_mips_malta32el_nanomips(self.ASSET_KERNEL_16K)
> +
> + @skipLongRuntime()
> + def test_replay_mips_malta32el_nanomips_64k_dbg(self):
> + self.do_test_replay_mips_malta32el_nanomips(self.ASSET_KERNEL_64K)
Guess that answers my own question. I'd think a separate
file for replay tests per target is nicer, so we leave the
default executed malta tests with short timeout in meson.
With regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
