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
