Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> writes:
> 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. So what are tests/tcg if not user tests? They *mostly* test linux-user emulation but of course we have softmmu tests in there as well. > > Thanks for sharing the background references, > > Phil. -- Alex Bennée
