Re: [Qemu-devel] Improving QMP test coverage

[Stefan Hajnoczi]

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 07:16:52PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> On Thu, 07/27 11:09, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 05:19:57PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > > On Thu, 07/27 10:14, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > > > This brings some advantages of "verify output with diff" to tests that
> > > > verify with code.  Improvement if it simplifies the verification code.
> > > > 
> > > > I'd still prefer *no* verification code (by delegating the job to diff)
> > > > for tests where I can get away wit it.
> > > 
> > > Python based iotests can be (re)done in such a way that they print actual 
> > > logs
> > > (interactions with qtest/monitor, stdout/stderr of QEMU, etc) instead of 
> > > the
> > > current dot dot dot summary, then we automatically have diff based 
> > > verification,
> > > no?
> > 
> > The python test 149 that I wrote does exactly that. There's no reason why
> > the others couldn't do the same.
> 
> Yes, and IMO it should be the default and recommended way.

I agree.  It's something I embarked on but never finished a few years
ago.  I wanted to modify iotests.py to use logging and drop the unittest
framework.

Stefan

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature