Re: [PATCH 1/4] Revert "migration: modify test_multifd_tcp_none() to use new QAPI syntax"

[Peter Xu]

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 04:41:16PM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote:
> Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 11:31:08PM +0530, Het Gala wrote:
> >> I just wanted to highlight couple of pointers:
> >> 1. though we are using 'channels' in the precopy tests for 'migrate' QAPI,
> >> we
> >>    use the old uri for 'migrate-incoming' QAPI.
> >> 2. We do not cover other 'channels' abi, only have tcp path tested.
> >> 
> >> So, the TO-DOs could be:
> >> 1. Omit the 4th patch here, which introduced postcopy qtests with 
> >> 'channels'
> >>    interface OR have 'channels' interface with other than tcp transport
> >>    (file, exec, vsock, etc) so as to cover different code paths.
> >> 2. Extend channels interface to migrate-incoming QAPI for precopy qtests
> >
> > You can see whether Fabiano has anything to say, but what you proposed
> > looks good to me.
> 
> Ok, so what about we convert some of the 'plain' tests into channels to
> cover all transports?
> 
> - tcp: test_multifd_tcp_none  (this one we already did)
> - file: test_precopy_file
> - unix: test_precopy_unix_plain
> - exec: test_analyze_script
> - fd: test_migrate_precopy_fd_socket
> 
> Those^, plus the validate_uri that's already in next should cover
> everything.
> 
> We don't need to do this at once, by the way.
> 
> Moreover:
> 
> - leave all test strings untouched to preserve bisecting;
> 
> - let's not bother adding "channels" and "uri" to the test string
>   anymore. The channels API should be taken for granted at this point, I
>   don't expect we start hitting bugs that will require us to run either
>   foo/uri/plain or foo/channels/plain, so there's not much point in
>   making the distinction.

Do you mean we can put "uri:" aside?  Maybe I misunderstood..

The matrix previously was (I think.. when this series posted):

  [tcp, unix, file, exec, fd] x [uri, channels] x [precopy, postcopy]

Drop postcopy as doesn't seem to have any special paths:

  [tcp, unix, file, exec, fd] x [uri, channels]

So logically we should still cover these, right?

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu