On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 12:23 PM Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Fri, 21 May 2021 at 16:13, Willian Rampazzo <wramp...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 11:29 AM Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> > > wrote: > > > This does raise the question of what we're actually trying > > > to distinguish. It seems to me somewhat that what tests/acceptance/ > > > actually contains that makes it interestingly different from other > > > tests/ stuff is that it's specifically "tests using the Avocado > > > framework". On that theory we might name it tests/avocado/. > > > > I think the updated README.rst from this RFC, inside the system > > (originally acceptance) folder, is a good description of what these > > tests should be: "This directory contains system tests. They're > > usually higher level, and may interact with external resources and > > with various guest operating systems." I can improve it, if needed. > > > > We are using Avocado Framework as a tool to accomplish the above > > description, but I don't think we should strictly use it if there is > > another way to accomplish what those tests are supposed to be. Calling > > them "avocado" tests may restrict the intent of them, in my opinion. > > But the main reason IMHO that we have them in a separate directory is > because that's where we have all the avocado machinery. I think the > sharing of the machinery is what dictates whether a test winds up in > tests/acceptance, tests/qtest, tests/tcg or tests/qemu-iotests > much more than whether it is "usually higher level" or more of a > unit test or whatever. If we ever added some other test framework for > doing system tests, we'd probably want to put it in its own > directory rather than lumping all its support machinery and > build files in together with the avocado based tests.
Okay, I understand your point. With the organization of tests under the test folder that QEMU has today, I agree with you. > > thanks > -- PMM >
