On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 01:20:30PM +0530, Ani Sinha wrote: > On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 1:08 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 12:58:33PM +0530, Ani Sinha wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 12:23 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 06:12:14AM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > > > > > I even wouldn't mind if you put your python stuff in a new directory > > > > > like > > > > > tests/pytests/ for example, as long as it downloads your binaries > > > > > separately > > > > > - as I wrote in another mail, the avocado framework rather looks like > > > > > an > > > > > oddball in our test framework nowadays since it uses a separate test > > > > > runner > > > > > and not the meson test harness, so having a new approach for > > > > > python-based > > > > > tests is maybe even a good idea. I just really want to avoid that > > > > > this goes > > > > > into tests/qtest (since it really does not belong there), and please > > > > > don't > > > > > add more external stuff via git submodules, that's really the wrong > > > > > approach > > > > > for this. > > > > > > > > I get it, people hate submodules with passion. I think trying another > > > > approach for testing that is neither avocado nor qtest is > > > > not too bad. As long as this is not user visible, we can > > > > allow ourselves space to experiment. > > > > > > > > OK so, how about this: > > > > - put it in a new directory: tests/roms? > > > > - create repo for a fork of biosbits under git.qemu.org > > > > - roll our own analog to git submodules: a script > > > > that clones the repo > > > > > > No need to clone the whole repo. We can simply download the binaries > > > that the girlab CI job would generate from the bits sources in that > > > repo. > > > We need to clone if we are always building bits from source for every > > > test. That is not necessary IMHO since much of the bits package would > > > remain as is without modification. > > > > IMHO CI job idea isn't great since isn't versioned at all, is it? > > bits is versioned yes, in a crude way. every time you make a commit in > the top level repo, the version would increment by one.
Is it easy to find out which source was this generated from? And is there a promise to keep these around indefinitely? > > Also as long as test passes, sure. But if it fails one will > > need the sources to investigate. > > sources might also be needed to write the tests. > > > > > Let's start with building things from source. > > hmm. bitys uses old autotools, not ninja and takes about 10/15 mins to > build depending on parallelity and build host. Right. But whoever wants to use these just needs to do it once. > Add an option > > of prebuilt binaries as an optimization once things > > stabilize. > > > > > > > > - new target make check-roms, > > > > > > I think make pytest or some such is better and more generic if other > > > such tests in other areas follow suit. > > > > The name is not critical in my mind, but I think we need to decide > > what exactly differentiates it from other tests. > > > > > > > > > > if the clone exists locally - > > > > run the test, if not - skip it > > > > > > if download of the bits binaries fail, skip it. > > > > You seem to be recreating either git or avocado or both here. > > > > Personally I want something that works offline. > > > > > > > > > > - as for using pre-generates ISOs as an optimization, > > > > I'm not sure how important that is, if yes - > > > > we can add another repo and another make target along the > > > > same lines > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > MST > > > > > >
