On 10/17/18 6:12 PM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 04:54:52PM -0400, Cleber Rosa wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/17/18 3:48 PM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 03:25:34PM -0400, Cleber Rosa wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/17/18 3:09 PM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 07:40:51PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>>>>> On 17 October 2018 at 18:38, Cleber Rosa <cr...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/17/18 12:29 PM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 01:34:41PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>>>>>>>> So, why does the test code need to care? It's not clear
>>>>>>>>> from the patch... My expectation would be that you'd
>>>>>>>>> just test all the testable target architectures,
>>>>>>>>> regardless of what the host architecture is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I tend to agree. Maybe the right solution is to get rid of the
>>>>>>>> os.uname(). I think the default should be testing all QEMU
>>>>>>>> binaries that were built, and the host architecture shouldn't
>>>>>>>> matter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, looking at os.uname() also seems like an odd thing
>>>>>> for the tests to be doing here. The test framework
>>>>>> should be as far as possible host-architecture agnostic.
>>>>>> (For some of the KVM cases there probably is a need to
>>>>>> care, but those are exceptions, not the rule.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm in favor of exercising all built targets, but that seems to me to be
>>>>>>> on another layer, above the test themselves. This change is about the
>>>>>>> behavior of a test when not told about the target arch (and thus binary)
>>>>>>> it should use.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At that level, I think the right answer is "tell the user
>>>>>> they need to specify the qemu executable they are trying to test".
>>>>>> In particular, there is no guarantee that the user has actually
>>>>>> built the executable for the target that corresponds to the
>>>>>> host, so it doesn't work to try to default to that anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed. However, I don't see when exactly this message would be
>>>>> triggered. Cleber, on which use cases do you expect
>>>>> pick_default_qemu_bin() to be called?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When a test is run ad-hoc. You even suggested that tests could/should
>>>> be executable.
>>>>
>>>>> In an ideal world, any testing runner/tool should be able to
>>>>> automatically test all binaries by default. Can Avocado help us
>>>>> do that? (If not, we could just do it inside a
>>>>> ./tests/acceptance/run script).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Avocado can do that indeed. But I'm afraid that's not the main issue.
>>>> Think of the qemu-iotests: do we want a "check" command to run all
>>>> tests with all binaries?
>>>
>>> Good question. That would be my first expectation, but I'm not
>>> sure.
>>>
>>
>> If it wasn't clear, I'm trying to define the basic behavior of *one
>> test*. I'm aware of a few different behaviors across tests in QEMU:
>
> I think we have some confusion here: I'm not sure what you mean
> when you say "one test". Note that I'm not talking about the
> test code architecture, but about the interface we provide for
> running tests.
>
>>
>> 1) qemu-iotests: require "check" to run, will attempt to find/run with
>> a "suitable" QEMU binary.
>>
>> 2) libqtest based: executables, in theory runnable by themselves, and
>> will not attempt to find/run a "suitable" QEMU binary. Those will
>> print: "Environment variable QTEST_QEMU_BINARY required".
>>
>> 3) acceptance tests: require the Avocado test runner, will attempt to
>> find/run with a "suitable" QEMU binary.
>>
>> So, I'm personally not aware of any test in QEMU which *by themselves*
>> defaults to running on all (relevant) built targets (machine types?
>> device types?). Test selection (defining a test suite) and setting
>> parameters is always done elsewhere (Makefile, check-block.sh,
>> qemu-iotests-quick.sh, etc).
>>
>>> Pro: testing all binaries by default would cause less confusion
>>> than picking a random QEMU binary.
>>>
>>
>> IMO we have to differentiate between *in test* QEMU binary selection
>> (some? none?) and other layers (Makefiles, scripts, etc).
>>
>>> Con: testing all binaries may be inconvenient for quickly
>>> checking if a test case works. (I'm not convinced this is a
>>> problem. If you don't want to test everything, you probably
>>> already have a short target list in your ./configure line?)
>>>
>>
>> Convenience is important, but I'm convinced this is a software layering
>> problem. I have the feeling we're trying to impose higher level
>> (environment/build/check) definitions to the lower level (test) entities.
>
> I think we're mixing user interface with code
> layering/organization.
>
> The code organization may ensure the QEMU binary selection is in
> another layer. That's fine.
>
OK.
> But the user interface we provide to running a single test should
> be usable (and do what users expect). That's where I think the
> problem lies. Maybe this UI problem could be addressed by
> avocado, maybe it can be addressed by a wrapper script (see
> comments below).
>
>
I absolutely agree with "running a single test should be usable (and do
what users expect)".
>>
>>> Pro: testing a single binary using uname() is already
>>> implemented.
>>>
>>
>> Right. I'm not unfavorable to changing that behavior, and ERRORing
>> tests when a binary is not given (similar to libqtest) is a simple
>> change if we're to do it. But I do find that usability drops considerably.
>>
>> And finally I don't think the "if a qemu binary is not explicitly given,
>> let's try the matching host architecture" is confusing or hard to
>> follow. And, it's pretty well documented if you ask me:
>
> I think it may cause confusion, and is inconsistent with all
> other methods we recommend for running tests.
>
It's hard to argue against "it may cause confusion" when something is
decided during runtime, so you clearly have a point. But, given the
behavior of the iotests which is exactly that, I don't consider it
inconsistent with all other tests in QEMU. As Peter said, it may not be
a model to follow, though.
>>
>> ---
>> QEMU binary selection
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> The QEMU binary used for the ``self.vm`` QEMUMachine instance will
>> primarily depend on the value of the ``qemu_bin`` parameter. If it's
>> not explicitly set, its default value will be the result of a dynamic
>> probe in the same source tree. A suitable binary will be one that
>> targets the architecture matching (the) host machine.
>>
>> Based on this description, test writers will usually rely on one of
>> the following approaches:
>>
>> 1) Set ``qemu_bin``, and use the given binary
>>
>> 2) Do not set ``qemu_bin``, and use a QEMU binary named like
>> "${arch}-softmmu/qemu-system-${arch}", either in the current
>> working directory, or in the current source tree.
>>
>> The resulting ``qemu_bin`` value will be preserved in the
>> ``avocado_qemu.Test`` as an attribute with the same name.
>
> If we provide a good user interface for running single tests
> against all binaries, users won't even care about `qemu_bin`, and
> this would be just a low level details inside the avocado_qemu
> code.
>
> "This is documented" is good. "This doesn't need to be
> documented" would be awesome.
>
>
Agreed.
>> ---
>>
>>> Con: making `avocado run` automatically generate variants of a
>>> test case may take some effort?
>>>
>>
>> Well, it will take some effort, sure. But my point do we want to
>> *enforce* that? I think that should be left to a "run" script or make
>> rule like you suggested. IMO, `avocado run a_single_test.py` shouldn't
>> do more than just that.
>
> What do you mean by "do just that"?
I mean "running a single test" (one test, one variant). The test
results would show a "RESULTS: PASS 1 | FAIL 0 | ... | CANCEL 0".
>
> I would love if avocado could be smarter and
> "avocado run [<test>]" automatically got test variant information
> somewhere and run multiple variants. But if this is not possible
> today, a wrapper script would be good enough to me.
>
We're definitely on the same page, and, I believe this could be
implemented with a new varianter plugin. Then, doing:
$ avocado run --varianter-qemu-targets-built <test>
Would give us N test executions, one per variant. I kind of
demonstrated that with the variants/arch.json file.
Now, nothing prevents us from having an Avocado configuration file that
will make "--varianter-qemu-targets-built" a default option when running
inside a QEMU build tree. Then, I'd expect:
$ avocado config
Config files read (in order):
/etc/avocado/avocado.conf
...
/tmp/qemu-build/.avocado.conf
And "avocado run a_single_test.py" to produce to produce something like:
JOB ID : 0fb835fb82d26627456c9f6af045858b20e1e5af
JOB LOG : job-results/job-2018-10-17T19.04-0fb835f/job.log
VARIANTS : QEMUBuiltTargets [x86_64-softmmu, ppc64-softmmu]
(1/2) : a_single_test.py-x86_64-softmmu PASS (0.03 s)
(2/2) : a_single_test.py-ppc64-softmmu PASS (0.03 s)
RESULTS : PASS 2 | ERROR 0 | FAIL 0 | SKIP 0 | WARN 0 | INTERRUPT 0 |
CANCEL 0
JOB TIME : 0.19 s
Does this fits into your understanding of what we need?
- Cleber.
