On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 11:42:37AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 03:58:21PM +0530, Ani Sinha wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 3:37 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 11:04:30AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > > If it is actually booting a real guest image (from biosbits) and > > > > interacting > > > > with it, then it does feel like the scope of this testing is more > > > > appropriate > > > > to QEMU's avocado framework than qtest, especially given the desire to > > > > use > > > > python for it all. > > > > > > > > With regards, > > > > Daniel > > > > > > I feel avocado is directed towards booting full fledged guest OS. > > > It makes it much easier to figure out guest issues but it also > > > prone to false positives and is harder to debug as a result. > > > Booting a minimal image like this shouldn't require that. > > > > Yes 100% agree with Michael on this. Biobits is *not* booting any OS > > image. It runs off grub, that is, directly from bootloader stage. The > > interraction with the VM is minimal. > > Just because it doesn't run a whole Linux kernel, doesn't make it > not a guest OS image. It is merely unsual in that it can do everything > it needs from grub stage, because it is just poking low level BIOS > stuff and doesn't need a full OS like Linux on top. This is still > functional integration testing IMHO and relevant to avocado in QEMU. > > With regards, > Daniel
I think the main difference is not even in how it works, it's in what it does. Which is check that ACPI tables are sane. Who cares about that? Well developers do when they change the tables. Users really don't because for users we have the expected tables in tree and we check against these. -- MST
