On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 at 14:23, Ani Sinha <a...@anisinha.ca> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 6:25 PM Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > This proposed biosbits test also involves a considerable download. > > I do not think 50 MB is "considerable" . Last time I tried to run > avocado tests, my laptop ran out of disk space!
I think 50MB is pretty big. It might be smaller than some other avocado tests, but it's not exactly the "no binary involved" that most qtests are. > > The test is said to be irrelevant for anyone except those working > > on a fairly narrow set of QEMU firmware related bits. > > Well ok that is just a bad argument. You can say the same thing for > most qtests. In fact, that is why most qtetes can run directly simply > by passing QTEST_QEMU_BINARY in the environment. No need to go through > make check. Same with the bits test. It can be run directly. 'make check' is generally the small, fast, no-binary-blobs tests. Very few 'make check' tests even run code in the guest. > So by the same > > rationale we shouldn't impose that burden on everyone working on > > QEMU by having it in qtest. > > So why burden everyone by having bios-tables-test when it only affects > acpi/smbios developers? Because it's small and fast and doesn't have a binary blob to download. There are definitely some awkwardnesses with 'check-avocado', but we should work on fixing those, not use them as a reason to refuse to put tests into the avocado tests if that's where they fit best. -- PMM
