[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH v2 6/6] iotest 201: new test for qmp nbd-server-

From: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
Subject: Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH v2 6/6] iotest 201: new test for qmp nbd-server-remove
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 17:40:16 +0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2

12.01.2018 19:54, Eric Blake wrote:
On 01/12/2018 05:43 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:

+++ b/tests/qemu-iotests/201.out
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+Ran 7 tests
I'm not a fan of python tests that are difficult to debug.  Your
additions to 147 in patch 4/6 are okay (hard to debug, but an
incremental addition); but is it possible to rewrite this test in a bit
more verbose manner?  See test 194 and this message for more details:
hmm, what do you mean by "difficult to debug"? This is a usual python
unittest based test.
And the list archives show several threads of people complaining that
./check failing with a diff that merely shows:


didn't see that. usually, for failed iotests I see


+ some kind of assert-fail in one of testcases

so we know in which testcase and in which line it was failed.

makes it rather hard to see WHAT test 2 was doing that caused an error
instead of a pass, let alone set up a reproduction scenario on JUST the
failing test.  Yes, a lot of existing iotests use this unittest layout,
and on that grounds, I'm not opposed to adding another one; but test 194
really IS easier to debug when something goes wrong.

And there 3 test cases, sharing same setUp. Do not you say that unittest
deprecated in qemu? I think, if we have only one testcase, we may use
194-like approach,
but if we have more, it's better to use unittest.
Yes, I think a nice goal for improved testing is to write more
python-based iotests in the style that uses actual output, and not just
the unittest framework, in the test log.  It's not a hard requirement as
long as no one has converted existing tests, but is food for thought.

I think, it doesn't mean that we should not use unittest at all, we just need more output with

Best regards,

reply via email to

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