|
From: | Thomas Huth |
Subject: | Re: venv for python qtest bits? (was: Re: [PATCH 11/12] acpi/tests/bits: add README file for bits qtests) |
Date: | Tue, 28 Jun 2022 12:30:08 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.10.0 |
On 28/06/2022 12.21, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 11:14:53AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:Now that you mention it, avocado does feel like a more appropriate fit. IIUC the biosbits project appears to be effectively providing a custom guest OS ISO image. IOW this testing is quite biased towards being integration testing which is the target of avocado, while qtest is much more to the unit testing end of the spectrum. This would avoid all the discussion and patches around introducing python to qtest With regards, DanielYes it's an ISO image but not a full OS.
The avocado framework is not meant for full OS testing only. We have a couple of tests there that just run a small firmware image. For example:
- tests/avocado/machine_m68k_nextcube.py : Just runs the original firmware of the NexT Cube machine
- tests/avocado/ppc_405.py : Just runs an U-Boot firmware imageSome of the tests even do not download anything at all and just run a QEMU instance via python, e.g.:
- tests/avocado/virtio_check_params.py - tests/avocado/x86_cpu_model_versions.py So I fail to see why biosbits should be so much different here.Of course we could argue whether the avocado framework is really such a great fit for the QEMU test suite (as I said in another mail, it rather feels like an oddball nowadays), but that's a different argument.
Thomas
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |