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

[Thomas Huth]

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.

 Thomas