On 01/28/2019 03:47 PM, Caio Carrara wrote:
This change adds the possibility to write acceptance tests with multi
virtual machine support. It's done keeping the virtual machines objects
stored in a test attribute (dictionary). This dictionary shouldn't be
accessed directly but through the new method added `get_vm`. This new
method accept a list of args (that will be added as virtual machine
arguments) and an optional name argument. The name is the key that
identify a single virtual machine along the test machines available. If
a name without a machine is informed a new machine will be instantiated.
The current usage of vm in tests will not be broken by this change since
it keeps a property called vm in the base test class. This property only
calls the new method `get_vm` with default parameters (no args and
'default' as machine name).
I've checked that current tests does not break by this change. I also
checked the example you provided on docs/devel/testing.rst works too.
So Tested-by: Wainer dos Santos Moschetta <address@hidden>
Signed-off-by: Caio Carrara <address@hidden>
---
docs/devel/testing.rst | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++-
tests/acceptance/avocado_qemu/__init__.py | 25 +++++++++++---
2 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/docs/devel/testing.rst b/docs/devel/testing.rst
index 18e2c0868a..b97c0368bc 100644
--- a/docs/devel/testing.rst
+++ b/docs/devel/testing.rst
@@ -634,7 +634,45 @@ instance, available at ``self.vm``. Because many tests
will tweak the
QEMU command line, launching the QEMUMachine (by using ``self.vm.launch()``)
is left to the test writer.
-At test "tear down", ``avocado_qemu.Test`` handles the QEMUMachine
+The base test class has also support for tests with more than one
+QEMUMachine. The way to get machines is through the ``self.get_vm()``
+method which will return a QEMUMachine instance. The ``self.get_vm()``
+method also accepts an optional `name` attribute so you can identify a
+specific machine and get it more than once through the tests methods. A
+simple and hypothetical example follows:
Since you explain the self.get_vm() optional name attribute, you also could
mention it accepts arguments to be passed to the newly created VM.
+
+.. code::
+
+ from avocado_qemu import Test
+
+
+ class MultipleMachines(Test):
+ """
+ :avocado: enable
+ """
+ def test_multiple_machines(self):
+ first_machine = self.get_vm()
+ second_machine = self.get_vm()
+ self.get_vm(name='third_machine').launch()
+
+ first_machine.launch()
+ second_machine.launch()
+
+ first_res = first_machine.command(
+ 'human-monitor-command',
+ command_line='info version')
+
+ second_res = second_machine.command(
+ 'human-monitor-command',
+ command_line='info version')
+
+ third_res = self.get_vm(name='third_machine').command(
+ 'human-monitor-command',
+ command_line='info version')
+
+ self.assertEquals(first_res, second_res, third_res)
+
+At test "tear down", ``avocado_qemu.Test`` handles all the QEMUMachines
shutdown.
QEMUMachine
diff --git a/tests/acceptance/avocado_qemu/__init__.py
b/tests/acceptance/avocado_qemu/__init__.py
index 1e54fd5932..4c9e27feda 100644
--- a/tests/acceptance/avocado_qemu/__init__.py
+++ b/tests/acceptance/avocado_qemu/__init__.py
@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
import os
import sys
+import uuid
import avocado
@@ -42,13 +43,29 @@ def pick_default_qemu_bin():
class Test(avocado.Test):
def setUp(self):
- self.vm = None
+ self._vms = {}
self.qemu_bin = self.params.get('qemu_bin',
default=pick_default_qemu_bin())
if self.qemu_bin is None:
self.cancel("No QEMU binary defined or found in the source tree")
- self.vm = QEMUMachine(self.qemu_bin)
+
+ def _new_vm(self, *args):
+ vm = QEMUMachine(self.qemu_bin)
+ if args:
+ vm.add_args(*args)
+ return vm
+
+ @property
+ def vm(self):
+ return self.get_vm(name='default')
+
+ def get_vm(self, *args, name=None):
+ if not name:
+ name = str(uuid.uuid4())
Beware that if you don't give a name to the VM, the only way to access it
later is to keep the reference returned by get_vm(). Do you think it is
something we should care about? or assume the test writer handle this
(unlikely?) case somehow?