On 5/21/21 2:28 PM, Willian Rampazzo wrote: > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 4:16 AM Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> On 20/05/2021 22.28, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >>> On 5/20/21 9:53 PM, Willian Rampazzo wrote: >>>> Conceptually speaking, acceptance tests "are a series of specific tests >>>> conducted by the customer in an attempt to uncover product errors before >>>> accepting the software from the developer. Conducted by the end-user rather >>>> than software engineers, acceptance testing can range from an informal >>>> “test drive” to a planned and systematically executed series of scripted >>>> tests" [1]. Every time Pressman refers to the term "acceptance testing," he >>>> also refers to user's agreement in the final state of an implemented >>>> feature. >>>> Today, QEMU is not implementing user acceptance tests as described by >>>> Pressman. >>>> >>>> There are other three possible terms we could use to describe what is >>>> currently >>>> QEMU "acceptance" tests: >>>> >>>> 1 - Integration tests: >>>> - "Integration testing is a systematic technique for constructing >>>> the >>>> software architecture while at the same time conducting tests to >>>> uncover errors associated with interfacing. The objective is to >>>> take >>>> unit-tested components and build a program structure that has >>>> been >>>> dictated by design." [2] >>>> * Note: Sommerville does not have a clear definition of integration >>>> testing. He refers to incremental integration of components inside >>>> the system testing (see [3]). >> >> After thinking about this for a while, I agree with you that renaming the >> "acceptance" tests to "integration" tests is also not a good idea. When I >> hear "integration" test in the context of the virt stack, I'd rather expect >> a test suite that picks KVM (i.e. a kernel), QEMU, libvirt and maybe >> virt-manager on top and tests them all together. So we should look for a >> different name indeed. >> >>>> 2 - Validation tests: >>>> - "Validation testing begins at the culmination of integration >>>> testing, >>>> when individual components have been exercised, the software is >>>> completely assembled as a package, and interfacing errors have >>>> been >>>> uncovered and corrected. At the validation or system level, the >>>> distinction between different software categories disappears. >>>> Testing >>>> focuses on user-visible actions and user-recognizable output >>>> from the >>>> system." [4] >>>> - "where you expect the system to perform correctly using a set of >>>> test >>>> cases that reflect the system’s expected use." [5] >>>> * Note: the definition of "validation testing" from Sommerville >>>> reflects >>>> the same definition found around the Internet, as one of the >>>> processes >>>> inside the "Verification & Validation (V&V)." In this concept, >>>> validation testing is a high-level definition that covers unit >>>> testing, >>>> functional testing, integration testing, system testing, and >>>> acceptance >>>> testing. >>>> >>>> 3 - System tests: >>>> - "verifies that all elements mesh properly and that overall system >>>> function and performance is achieved." [6] >>>> - "involves integrating components to create a version of the >>>> system and >>>> then testing the integrated system. System testing checks that >>>> components are compatible, interact correctly, and transfer the >>>> right >>>> data at the right time across their interfaces." [7] >>>> >>>> The tests implemented inside the QEMU "acceptance" directory depend on the >>>> software completely assembled and, sometimes, on other elements, like >>>> operating >>>> system images. In this case, the proposal here is to rename the current >>>> "acceptance" directory to "system." >>> >>> Are user-mode tests using Avocado also system tests? >>> https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg782505.html >> >> We've indeed got the problem that the word "system" is a little bit >> overloaded in the context of QEMU. We often talk about "system" when >> referring to the qemu-softmmu-xxx emulators (in contrast to the linux-user >> emulator binaries). For example, the "--disable-system" switch of the >> configure script, or the "build-system" and "check-system" jobs in the >> .gitlab-ci.yml file ... thus this could get quite confusing in the >> .gitlab-ci.yml file afterwards. > > I agree with you here. After I made the changes to the code, I noticed > QEMU has the "system" word spread all over the place. That may confuse > people looking at the "system tests" without much interaction with > software testing terminology. > >> >> So I think renaming "acceptance" to "system" is especially ok if we only >> keep the "softmmu"-related tests in that folder... would it maybe make sense >> to add the linux-user related tests in a separate folder called tests/user/ >> instead, Philippe? And we should likely rename the current build-system and >> check-system jobs in our gitlab-CI to build-softmmu and check-softmmu or so? >> > > As I mentioned in Philippe's reply, those tests are still considered > system tests because system testing is the software built and > interacting with external test artifacts in software engineering. > >> Alternatively, what about renaming the "acceptance" tests to "validation" >> instead? That word does not have a duplicated definition in the context of >> QEMU yet, so I think it would be less confusing. > > While at the beginning of your reply, I started thinking if > "validation" would cause less confusion for the QEMU project. Although > validation testing is a broader concept inside the Verification & > Validation process, encompassing unit testing, functional testing, > integration testing, system testing, and acceptance testing, it may be > an option for the QEMU project. > > While system testing would be the correct terminology to use, if it > causes more confusion, using a less strict terminology, like > validation testing, is valid, in my opinion.
This works for me: - tests/system/softmmu - tests/system/user Or validation, as you prefer. Thanks for sharing the background references, Phil.
