Re: [RFC 1/1] acceptance tests: rename acceptance to system

[Philippe Mathieu-Daudé]

On 5/21/21 2:28 PM, Willian Rampazzo wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 4:16 AM Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 20/05/2021 22.28, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>> On 5/20/21 9:53 PM, Willian Rampazzo wrote:
>>>> Conceptually speaking, acceptance tests "are a series of specific tests
>>>> conducted by the customer in an attempt to uncover product errors before
>>>> accepting the software from the developer. Conducted by the end-user rather
>>>> than software engineers, acceptance testing can range from an informal
>>>> “test drive” to a planned and systematically executed series of scripted
>>>> tests" [1]. Every time Pressman refers to the term "acceptance testing," he
>>>> also refers to user's agreement in the final state of an implemented 
>>>> feature.
>>>> Today, QEMU is not implementing user acceptance tests as described by 
>>>> Pressman.
>>>>
>>>> There are other three possible terms we could use to describe what is 
>>>> currently
>>>> QEMU "acceptance" tests:
>>>>
>>>>    1 - Integration tests:
>>>>        - "Integration testing is a systematic technique for constructing 
>>>> the
>>>>           software architecture while at the same time conducting tests to
>>>>           uncover errors associated with interfacing. The objective is to 
>>>> take
>>>>           unit-tested components and build a program structure that has 
>>>> been
>>>>           dictated by design." [2]
>>>>        * Note: Sommerville does not have a clear definition of integration
>>>>          testing. He refers to incremental integration of components inside
>>>>          the system testing (see [3]).
>>
>> After thinking about this for a while, I agree with you that renaming the
>> "acceptance" tests to "integration" tests is also not a good idea. When I
>> hear "integration" test in the context of the virt stack, I'd rather expect
>> a test suite that picks KVM (i.e. a kernel), QEMU, libvirt and maybe
>> virt-manager on top and tests them all together. So we should look for a
>> different name indeed.
>>
>>>>    2 - Validation tests:
>>>>        - "Validation testing begins at the culmination of integration 
>>>> testing,
>>>>           when individual components have been exercised, the software is
>>>>           completely assembled as a package, and interfacing errors have 
>>>> been
>>>>           uncovered and corrected. At the validation or system level, the
>>>>           distinction between different software categories disappears. 
>>>> Testing
>>>>           focuses on user-visible actions and user-recognizable output 
>>>> from the
>>>>           system." [4]
>>>>        - "where you expect the system to perform correctly using a set of 
>>>> test
>>>>           cases that reflect the system’s expected use." [5]
>>>>        * Note: the definition of "validation testing" from Sommerville 
>>>> reflects
>>>>          the same definition found around the Internet, as one of the 
>>>> processes
>>>>          inside the "Verification & Validation (V&V)." In this concept,
>>>>          validation testing is a high-level definition that covers unit 
>>>> testing,
>>>>          functional testing, integration testing, system testing, and 
>>>> acceptance
>>>>          testing.
>>>>
>>>>    3 - System tests:
>>>>        - "verifies that all elements mesh properly and that overall system
>>>>           function and performance is achieved." [6]
>>>>        - "involves integrating components to create a version of the 
>>>> system and
>>>>           then testing the integrated system. System testing checks that
>>>>           components are compatible, interact correctly, and transfer the 
>>>> right
>>>>           data at the right time across their interfaces." [7]
>>>>
>>>> The tests implemented inside the QEMU "acceptance" directory depend on the
>>>> software completely assembled and, sometimes, on other elements, like 
>>>> operating
>>>> system images. In this case, the proposal here is to rename the current
>>>> "acceptance" directory to "system."
>>>
>>> Are user-mode tests using Avocado also system tests?
>>> https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg782505.html
>>
>> We've indeed got the problem that the word "system" is a little bit
>> overloaded in the context of QEMU. We often talk about "system" when
>> referring to the qemu-softmmu-xxx emulators (in contrast to the linux-user
>> emulator binaries). For example, the "--disable-system" switch of the
>> configure script, or the "build-system" and "check-system" jobs in the
>> .gitlab-ci.yml file ... thus this could get quite confusing in the
>> .gitlab-ci.yml file afterwards.
> 
> I agree with you here. After I made the changes to the code, I noticed
> QEMU has the "system" word spread all over the place. That may confuse
> people looking at the "system tests" without much interaction with
> software testing terminology.
> 
>>
>> So I think renaming "acceptance" to "system" is especially ok if we only
>> keep the "softmmu"-related tests in that folder... would it maybe make sense
>> to add the linux-user related tests in a separate folder called tests/user/
>> instead, Philippe? And we should likely rename the current build-system and
>> check-system jobs in our gitlab-CI to build-softmmu and check-softmmu or so?
>>
> 
> As I mentioned in Philippe's reply, those tests are still considered
> system tests because system testing is the software built and
> interacting with external test artifacts in software engineering.
> 
>> Alternatively, what about renaming the "acceptance" tests to "validation"
>> instead? That word does not have a duplicated definition in the context of
>> QEMU yet, so I think it would be less confusing.
> 
> While at the beginning of your reply, I started thinking if
> "validation" would cause less confusion for the QEMU project. Although
> validation testing is a broader concept inside the Verification &
> Validation process, encompassing unit testing, functional testing,
> integration testing, system testing, and acceptance testing, it may be
> an option for the QEMU project.
> 
> While system testing would be the correct terminology to use, if it
> causes more confusion, using a less strict terminology, like
> validation testing, is valid, in my opinion.

This works for me:

- tests/system/softmmu
- tests/system/user

Or validation, as you prefer.

Thanks for sharing the background references,

Phil.