On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 07:16:52PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> On Thu, 07/27 11:09, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 05:19:57PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > > On Thu, 07/27 10:14, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > > > This brings some advantages of "verify output with diff" to tests th
On Thu, 07/27 11:09, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 05:19:57PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > On Thu, 07/27 10:14, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > > This brings some advantages of "verify output with diff" to tests that
> > > verify with code. Improvement if it simplifies the verifi
On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 05:19:57PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> On Thu, 07/27 10:14, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > This brings some advantages of "verify output with diff" to tests that
> > verify with code. Improvement if it simplifies the verification code.
> >
> > I'd still prefer *no* verificatio
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 08:56:50AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Cleber Rosa writes:
>
> > On 07/21/2017 11:33 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> >>> Output testing style delegates checking ouput to diff. I rather like it
> >>> when text output is readily available. It is when testing QMP. A
> >
On Thu, 07/27 17:19, Fam Zheng wrote:
> On the other hand the iotests are more difficult to debug when things go wrong
s/iotests/python tests/
On Thu, 07/27 10:14, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> This brings some advantages of "verify output with diff" to tests that
> verify with code. Improvement if it simplifies the verification code.
>
> I'd still prefer *no* verification code (by delegating the job to diff)
> for tests where I can get aw
Cleber Rosa writes:
> On 07/24/2017 02:56 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Test code language is orthogonal to verification method (with code
>> vs. with diff). Except verifying with shell code would be obviously
>> nuts[*].
>>
>> The existing iotests written in Python verify with code, and the
On 07/24/2017 02:56 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Test code language is orthogonal to verification method (with code
> vs. with diff). Except verifying with shell code would be obviously
> nuts[*].
>
> The existing iotests written in Python verify with code, and the ones
> written in shell veri
Cleber Rosa writes:
> On 07/21/2017 11:33 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>>> Output testing style delegates checking ouput to diff. I rather like it
>>> when text output is readily available. It is when testing QMP. A
>>> non-trivial example using this style could be useful, as discussing
>>> idea
On 07/21/2017 11:33 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>> Output testing style delegates checking ouput to diff. I rather like it
>> when text output is readily available. It is when testing QMP. A
>> non-trivial example using this style could be useful, as discussing
>> ideas tends to be more producti
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 06:24:19PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Stefan Hajnoczi writes:
>
> > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 05:28:52PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> What can we do to improve QMP testing? Sadly, I don't have the master
> >> plan ready. I can tell people their new code need
Stefan Hajnoczi writes:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 05:28:52PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> What can we do to improve QMP testing? Sadly, I don't have the master
>> plan ready. I can tell people their new code needs to come with tests,
>> but that won't help much unless subsystem maintainer
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 05:28:52PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> What can we do to improve QMP testing? Sadly, I don't have the master
> plan ready. I can tell people their new code needs to come with tests,
> but that won't help much unless subsystem maintainers pick up the habit,
> too. Th
13 matches
Mail list logo
