Re: [PATCH] tests/acceptance: Add boot tests for some of the QEMU advent calendar images

[Wainer dos Santos Moschetta]

On 1/25/20 2:43 PM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 24/01/2020 22.28, Wainer dos Santos Moschetta wrote:
> > On 1/24/20 3:03 PM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > > The 2018 edition of the QEMU advent calendar 2018 featured Linux images
> > > for various non-x86 machines. We can use them for a boot tests in our
> > > acceptance test suite.
> > >
> > > Let's also make sure that we build the corresponding machines in Travis,
> > > and while we're there, drop the superfluous --python parameter (python3
> > > is now the only supported version anyway).
> > Yes, please, removal of --python was in my wish list.
> >
> > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <address@hidden>
> > > ---
> > >    .travis.yml                            |  2 +-
> > >    tests/acceptance/boot_linux_console.py | 96 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >    2 files changed, 97 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/.travis.yml b/.travis.yml
> > > index 6c1038a0f1..73ca12c921 100644
> > > --- a/.travis.yml
> > > +++ b/.travis.yml
> > > @@ -268,7 +268,7 @@ matrix:
> > >          # Acceptance (Functional) tests
> > >        - env:
> > > -        - CONFIG="--python=/usr/bin/python3
> > > --target-list=x86_64-softmmu,mips-softmmu,mips64el-softmmu,aarch64-softmmu,arm-softmmu,s390x-softmmu,alpha-softmmu,ppc-softmmu,ppc64-softmmu,m68k-softmmu,sparc-softmmu"
> > >
> > > +        -
> > > CONFIG="--target-list=aarch64-softmmu,alpha-softmmu,arm-softmmu,m68k-softmmu,microblaze-softmmu,mips-softmmu,mips64el-softmmu,nios2-softmmu,or1k-softmmu,ppc-softmmu,ppc64-softmmu,s390x-softmmu,sparc-softmmu,x86_64-softmmu,xtensa-softmmu"
> >
> > Perhaps use MAIN_SOFTMMU_TARGETS in only append the other targets, like:
> >
> > --target-list=${MAIN_SOFTMMU_TARGETS},alpha-softmmu,sparc-softmmu,....
> Not sure ... while it is a nice way to shorten the line here, it adds a
> dependecy to that variable ... and MAIN_SOFTMMU_TARGETS has been changed
> a couple of times during the course of time, so we might risk to lose
> some testing coverage here in case someone removes a target from
> MAIN_SOFTMMU_TARGETS but forgets to add it here again...? I think we
> should better use the explicit list here instead.

Your reasoning makes sense to me. Feel free to ignore my suggestion.

Thanks,

Wainer

>   Thomas