Re: [Qemu-block] [RFC PATCH 0/2] Acceptance tests for qemu-img

[Eduardo Habkost]

On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 02:51:16PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 13.11.2018 um 14:26 hat Eduardo Habkost geschrieben:
> > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 01:18:36PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Anyway, one specific concern about the "simple way" I have is that we're
> > > adding a hard dependency on an external package (Avocado) that isn't
> > > usually installed anyway on developer machines. Maintainers will of
> > > course just install it. But will this reduce the amount of tests that
> > > contributors run, and increase the amount of untested patches on the
> > > mailing list?
> > > 
> > > Maybe we can keep a simple in-tree runner like ./check that doesn't have
> > > any external dependencies and runs all of those tests that don't make
> > > use of Avocado utility functions etc.? And you'd use Avocado when you
> > > want to run all tests or use advanced test harness options.
> > 
> > What problems you are trying to address here, exactly?
> > 
> > If you don't have Avocado installed in your system, all you need
> > is Python 3, an internet connection, and the ability to type
> > "make check-acceptance" on your keyboard.
> 
> Thanks, didn't know that one. Apparently you don't only need to have
> Python 3 available on the system, but also explicitly use it for
> ./configure?
> 
>     $ LANG=C make check-acceptance
>     /home/kwolf/source/qemu/tests/Makefile.include:930: *** "venv directory 
> for tests requires Python 3".  Stop.

I suggested in another thread that we should simply use "python3"
instead of $(PYTHON) here, to solve that problem.  I think we can
use you reply as evidence that this is really the right thing to
do.  :)

> 
> While this doesn't make the tests available automatically for everyone,
> we'll get there when we finally make Python 3 the default (hopefully
> soon), which is already a lot better than what docs/devel/testing.rst
> promises:
> 
>     These tests are written using the Avocado Testing Framework (which
>     must be installed separately) [...]
> 
> Maybe time to update the docs to match the improved situation? :-)

Absolutely.  Thanks for the feedback!

-- 
Eduardo