qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH 0/2] Acceptance tests for qemu-img


From: Kevin Wolf
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH 0/2] Acceptance tests for qemu-img
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 14:51:16 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)

Am 13.11.2018 um 14:26 hat Eduardo Habkost geschrieben:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 01:18:36PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> [...]
> > Anyway, one specific concern about the "simple way" I have is that we're
> > adding a hard dependency on an external package (Avocado) that isn't
> > usually installed anyway on developer machines. Maintainers will of
> > course just install it. But will this reduce the amount of tests that
> > contributors run, and increase the amount of untested patches on the
> > mailing list?
> > 
> > Maybe we can keep a simple in-tree runner like ./check that doesn't have
> > any external dependencies and runs all of those tests that don't make
> > use of Avocado utility functions etc.? And you'd use Avocado when you
> > want to run all tests or use advanced test harness options.
> 
> What problems you are trying to address here, exactly?
> 
> If you don't have Avocado installed in your system, all you need
> is Python 3, an internet connection, and the ability to type
> "make check-acceptance" on your keyboard.

Thanks, didn't know that one. Apparently you don't only need to have
Python 3 available on the system, but also explicitly use it for
./configure?

    $ LANG=C make check-acceptance
    /home/kwolf/source/qemu/tests/Makefile.include:930: *** "venv directory for 
tests requires Python 3".  Stop.

While this doesn't make the tests available automatically for everyone,
we'll get there when we finally make Python 3 the default (hopefully
soon), which is already a lot better than what docs/devel/testing.rst
promises:

    These tests are written using the Avocado Testing Framework (which
    must be installed separately) [...]

Maybe time to update the docs to match the improved situation? :-)

Kevin



reply via email to

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