Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 10:06:04AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 02:24:02PM -0400, Cleber Rosa wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On 07/26/2017 01:58 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 12:16:13PM -0400, Cleber Rosa wrote: >> >> >> On 07/25/2017 11:49 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: >> >> >>> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 10:21:24AM -0400, Cleber Rosa wrote: >> >> >>>> On 07/21/2017 10:01 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: >> >> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 01:33:25PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: >> >> >>>>>> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 11:47:27PM -0400, Cleber Rosa wrote: >> >> >>>> Without the static capabilities defined, the dynamic check would be >> >> >>>> influenced by the run time environment. It would really mean >> >> >>>> "qemu-io >> >> >>>> running on this environment (filesystem?) can do native aio". Again, >> >> >>>> that's not the best type of information to depend on when writing >> >> >>>> tests. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Can you explain this more? >> >> >>> >> >> >>> It seems logical to me that if qemu-io in this environment cannot do >> >> >>> aio=native then we must skip those tests. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Stefan >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> OK, let's abstract a bit more. Let's take this part of your statement: >> >> >> >> >> >> "if qemu-io in this environment cannot do aio=native" >> >> >> >> >> >> Let's call that a feature check. Depending on how the *feature check* >> >> >> is written, a negative result may hide a test failure, because it would >> >> >> now be skipped. >> >> > >> >> > You are saying a pass->skip transition can hide a failure but ./check >> >> > tracks skipped tests. See tests/qemu-iotests/check.log for a >> >> > pass/fail/skip history. >> >> > >> >> >> >> You're not focusing on the problem here. The problem is that a test >> >> that *was not* supposed to be skipped, would be skipped. >> > >> > As Daniel Berrange mentioned, ./configure has the same problem. You >> > cannot just run it blindly because it silently disables features. >> > >> > What I'm saying is that in addition to watching ./configure closely, you >> > also need to look at the skipped tests that ./check reports. If you do >> > that then you can be sure the expected set of tests is passing. >> > >> >> > It is the job of the CI system to flag up pass/fail/skip transitions. >> >> > You're no worse off using feature tests. >> >> > >> >> > Stefan >> >> > >> >> >> >> What I'm trying to help us achieve here is a reliable and predictable >> >> way for the same test job execution to be comparable across >> >> environments. From the individual developer workstation, CI, QA etc. >> > >> > 1. Use ./configure --enable-foo options for all desired features. >> > 2. Run the ./check command-line and there should be no unexpected skips >> > like this: >> > >> > 087 [not run] missing aio=native support >> > >> > To me this seems to address the problem. >> > >> > I have mentioned the issues with the build flags solution: it creates a >> > dependency on the build environment and forces test feature checks to >> > duplicate build dependency logic. This is why I think feature tests are >> > a cleaner solution. >> >> I suspect the actual problem here is that the qemu-iotests harness is >> not integrated in the build process. For other tests, we specify the >> tests to run in a Makefile, and use the same configuration mechanism as >> for building stuff conditionally. > > The ability to run tests against QEMU binaries without a build > environment is useful though. It would still be possible to symlink to > external binaries but then the build feature information could be > incorrect.
I don't dispute it's useful. "make check" doesn't do it, though. I think we can either have a standalone test suite (introspects the binaries under test to figure out what to test), or an integrated test suite (tests exactly what is configured). "make check" is the latter. qemu-iotests is kind-of-sort-of the former.