[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 0/3] Add common QEMU control functionality to
From: |
Fam Zheng |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 0/3] Add common QEMU control functionality to qemu-iotests |
Date: |
Tue, 6 May 2014 09:48:55 +0800 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) |
On Mon, 05/05 17:32, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 05.05.2014 um 17:21 hat Stefan Hajnoczi geschrieben:
> > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 10:55:07AM -0400, Jeff Cody wrote:
> > > This adds some common functionality to control QEMU for qemu-iotests.
> > >
> > > Additionally, test 085 is updated to use this new functionality.
> > >
> > > Some minor fixups along the way, to clear up spaced pathname issues,
> > > for common.rc, test 019, and test 086.
> > >
> > >
> > > Jeff Cody (3):
> > > block: qemu-iotests - add common.qemu, for bash-controlled qemu tests
> >
> > Once a test launches QEMU, it soon needs to parse QMP commands or wait
> > for QMP events. That doesn't lend itself to the traditional
> > qemu-iotests shell model. That is why iotests.py exists.
> >
> > Shell script is a poor language for test cases that go beyond
> > pre-defined commands whose output is saved for diffing. The string
> > manipulation is clumsy, JSON is not supported, tricks with fifos can
> > easily deadlock or break when a process terminates unexpectedly, etc.
> >
> > If we go further in the direction of this patch series, we'll duplicate
> > existing iotests.py code and have complex shell tests that are hard to
> > extend. I think it's time to draw the line and convert any test cases
> > that need to complexity to Python.
> >
> > Why not use iotests.py?
>
> Because it's hard to use. The "compare against reference output" thing
> is the first thing that you lose with iotests.py, and it's the most
> useful feature in qemu-iotests.
>
> When a Python test case fails, you get into real debugging. When a shell
> script test case fails, you usually see immediately from the reference
> output diff what's wrong.
>
Perhaps we should add more error information into iotests.py, if a test case
fails.
Otherwise I don't think iotests.py hard to use though, out of my subjective
point. I agree that shell is not as goog as python in this kind of test.
Fam