[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] Improving QMP test coverage
From: |
Stefan Hajnoczi |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] Improving QMP test coverage |
Date: |
Tue, 1 Aug 2017 11:25:58 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.8.3 (2017-05-23) |
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 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 away wit it.
> > >
> > > Python based iotests can be (re)done in such a way that they print actual
> > > logs
> > > (interactions with qtest/monitor, stdout/stderr of QEMU, etc) instead of
> > > the
> > > current dot dot dot summary, then we automatically have diff based
> > > verification,
> > > no?
> >
> > The python test 149 that I wrote does exactly that. There's no reason why
> > the others couldn't do the same.
>
> Yes, and IMO it should be the default and recommended way.
I agree. It's something I embarked on but never finished a few years
ago. I wanted to modify iotests.py to use logging and drop the unittest
framework.
Stefan
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Improving QMP test coverage,
Stefan Hajnoczi <=