qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Future goals for autotest and virtualization test


From: Ademar Reis
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Future goals for autotest and virtualization tests
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 12:01:22 -0300
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 02:54:23PM +0000, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Ademar Reis <address@hidden> wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 09:41:05AM +0000, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Ademar Reis <address@hidden> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 05:21:44PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >> >> On 03/08/2012 04:24 PM, Ademar Reis wrote:
> >> >> >On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 03:24:15PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >> >> >>On 03/08/2012 03:02 PM, Ademar Reis wrote:
> >> >> >>>On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 01:16:58PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >> >> >>>>On 03/08/2012 11:59 AM, Ademar Reis wrote:
> >> >> >>>   - QE will be alienated from the qemu test effort. There will be
> >> >> >>>     no integration between the QE efforts and the maintenance of
> >> >> >>>     the qemu developer-level tests.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>I think we're a pretty friendly and open community :-)  There is no
> >> >> >>reason that QE should be "alienated" unless folks are choosing not
> >> >> >>to participate upstream.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >For the exact same reasons you as a developer don't want to
> >> >> >implement tests inside autotest, QE won't want to implement tests
> >> >> >for qemu.git. It's out of their comfort zone, just put yourself
> >> >> >on their shoes.
> >> >>
> >> >> This is a really, really poor argument and I hope I don't need to go
> >> >> into details of why.  If the primary reason for libautotest is so
> >> >> the people writing tests for QEMU can avoid actually working with
> >> >> the developers of QEMU...  we've got a problem.
> >> >
> >> > No, one of the benefits of having libautotest is to *collaborate*
> >> > with QE. I'll explain again:
> >> >
> >> > - As a qemu developer, I don't want to spend my time learning and
> >> >  getting involved in autotest, which is a complex QE project
> >> >  (I heard this numerous times).
> >> >
> >> > - As a Quality Engineer, I don't want to invest my time learning
> >> >  and getting involved into upstream qemu to test HEAD.
> >>
> >> I think this is the key point of the whole discussion - most of the
> >> other topics have been distractions.  Both communities do testing but
> >> we test different things and have different priorities.
> >>
> >> For me this has been the big realization from this discussion.  I felt
> >> kvm-autotest and qemu should share tests.  I was pushing for that but
> >> after following this thread I don't think it makes sense, here's why:
> >>
> >> The Quality Engineer you describe is not a QEMU upstream QE, instead
> >> the QE has a broader and more downstream focus.  (This is why
> >> comparisons with WebKit or other upstream projects doing testing are
> >> not valid comparisons.)
> >
> > Lucas, Cleber and the others red-hatters should remembers this
> > from my internal presentation, it was the first point I made:
> > QE and Developers have very different goals and interests.
> >
> > Which is why we're pushing all these changes in autotest. We see
> > opportunities for collaboration, but we do realize the difference.
> >
> > And look: Lucas and Cleber are not QE, they're developers working
> > on the autotest framework/library/whatever. We'll need similar
> > positions inside qemu as the test infra-structure grows.
> 
> I don't understand this last paragraph.  If qemu.git upstream was
> doing full-scale QE it would work fine because the differences that
> I've described and you also have pointed out would be absent.
> 

In order to have QEMU working in full "TDD Mode" (a current
goal), I predict developers assigned to the maintenance of the
in-house test infrastructure (qemu-test) will be needed, on
positions similar to what Lucas and Cleber currently do with
autotest. Only time will tell.

-- 
Ademar de Souza Reis Jr.
Red Hat

^[:wq!



reply via email to

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