qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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


From: Wainer dos Santos Moschetta
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tests/acceptance: Add boot tests for some of the QEMU advent calendar images
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 11:22:05 -0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0


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






reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]