On Thu, 07/27 10:14, Markus Armbruster wrote: > This brings some advantages of "verify output with diff" to tests that > verify with code. Improvement if it simplifies the verification code. > > I'd still prefer *no* verification code (by delegating the job to diff) > for tests where I can get away wit it.
Python based iotests can be (re)done in such a way that they print actual logs (interactions with qtest/monitor, stdout/stderr of QEMU, etc) instead of the current dot dot dot summary, then we automatically have diff based verification, no? One thing I feel painful with bash iotests is how harder it is to write complicated test scenarios such as migration, incremental backup, etc. On the other hand the iotests are more difficult to debug when things go wrong because it eats the output which, if done with shell, should be very easy to get. Fam
