Re: [PATCH 2/3] Acceptance Tests: move definition of distro checksums to the framework

[Cleber Rosa <crosa@redhat.com>]

On 4/22/21 3:56 AM, Auger Eric wrote:
> Hi Cleber,
>
> On 4/15/21 12:14 AM, Cleber Rosa wrote:
>> Instead of having, by default, the checksum in the tests, and the
>> definition of tests in the framework, let's keep them together.
>>
>> A central definition for distributions is available, and it should
>> allow other known distros to be added more easily.
>>
>> No behavior change is expected here, and tests can still define
>> a distro_checksum value if for some reason they want to override
>> the known distribution information.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Cleber Rosa <crosa@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>   tests/acceptance/avocado_qemu/__init__.py | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++--
>>   tests/acceptance/boot_linux.py            |  8 ------
>>   2 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tests/acceptance/avocado_qemu/__init__.py b/tests/acceptance/avocado_qemu/__init__.py
>> index aae1e5bbc9..97093614d9 100644
>> --- a/tests/acceptance/avocado_qemu/__init__.py
>> +++ b/tests/acceptance/avocado_qemu/__init__.py
>> @@ -299,6 +299,30 @@ def ssh_command(self, command):
>>           return stdout_lines, stderr_lines
>>   
>>   
>> +#: A collection of known distros and their respective image checksum
>> +KNOWN_DISTROS = {
>> +    'fedora': {
>> +        '31': {
>> +            'x86_64':
>> +            {'checksum': 'e3c1b309d9203604922d6e255c2c5d098a309c2d46215d8fc026954f3c5c27a0'},
>> +            'aarch64':
>> +            {'checksum': '1e18d9c0cf734940c4b5d5ec592facaed2af0ad0329383d5639c997fdf16fe49'},
>> +            'ppc64':
>> +            {'checksum': '7c3528b85a3df4b2306e892199a9e1e43f991c506f2cc390dc4efa2026ad2f58'},
>> +            's390x':
>> +            {'checksum': '4caaab5a434fd4d1079149a072fdc7891e354f834d355069ca982fdcaf5a122d'},
>> +            }
>> +        }
>> +    }
> assuming we may put other data like kernel params and maybe pxeboot URL,
> this may grow rapidly, Maybe we should put that in a different file?


Hi Eric,


Sorry for the monstrous delay here.  You and I are thinking alike, but 
I'm planning to handle this on the Avocado side.  I'm writing a 
BluePrint[1] for what would be a revision of the Avocado asset API.  In 
that new proposal, data files (some builtin, some external) would be 
used to contain information about known assets.


So, for now, I think it's better to keep this AS IS.  Let me know if 
this works for you.


Thanks,

- Cleber.


[1] - https://github.com/avocado-framework/avocado/issues/4458