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

[Eric Blake]

On 01/15/2018 08:40 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:

>> And the list archives show several threads of people complaining that
>> ./check failing with a diff that merely shows:
>>
>> -.....
>> +..E..
> 
> didn't see that. usually, for failed iotests I see
> 
> -.....
> +..E..
> 
> + some kind of assert-fail in one of testcases

Although deciphering the assert-fail is not always trivial, and it is
still sorely underdocumented on how to manually reproduce the situation
that got to the stackdump.

> 
> 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
>>> becomes
>>> 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
> it.

Yes, that's also a potentially viable option.

-- 
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.           +1-919-301-3266
Virtualization:  qemu.org | libvirt.org

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature