Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 05:28:52PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> What can we do to improve QMP testing? Sadly, I don't have the master >> plan ready. I can tell people their new code needs to come with tests, >> but that won't help much unless subsystem maintainers pick up the habit, >> too. There are a few obvious tests to write for old code, such as a >> generic test of query-like commands without arguments and without side >> effects, similar to what test-hmp.c does for HMP command info (I hope to >> get around to that one). But for much of the old code, we don't even >> know where the test coverage holes are. >> >> Ideas anyone? > > It makes sense for maintainers to ask that new QMP commands come with > comprehensive tests. > > For me the main question is how to begin? What is the easiest and > preferred way to write QMP command test cases? > > Today the most common approach is a qtest test case that sends commands > and verifies that the expected response is returned. This approach > works but we could benefit from a discussion about the alternatives > (e.g. qemu-iotests style shell scripts with output diffing).
Output testing style delegates checking ouput to diff. I rather like it when text output is readily available. It is when testing QMP. A non-trivial example using this style could be useful, as discussing ideas tends to be more productive when they come with patches. > If it's easy to write tests then developers will contribute more tests. Yes. Maintainers can more easily demand them, too.
