From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9734CC47076 for ; Fri, 21 May 2021 14:47:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E05061057 for ; Fri, 21 May 2021 14:47:30 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 1E05061057 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linaro.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:33566 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lk6Qz-0001Ip-8J for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Fri, 21 May 2021 10:47:29 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:47906) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lk6PR-0007ty-36 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 21 May 2021 10:45:53 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-x42b.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::42b]:36819) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lk6PN-0007mN-MW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 21 May 2021 10:45:52 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-x42b.google.com with SMTP id c14so19557079wrx.3 for ; Fri, 21 May 2021 07:45:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=references:user-agent:from:to:cc:subject:date:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+vB3aMIvaKKckICZkPdsWnOYEtbX2m0k0QmU48S7bJY=; b=jDW0p3ilvOLoO2AlyLxacLTZzGaxD/iNTK4yC7z/YeaR+Gb6u82xVhMDQkCgm1wLSt 3HYU18+kyPsmnnpIZCAuCileatLXvFvMp+afvIPH0gjS5I2TLJIht3Jnsc3faSjXV9de Tj7pMYbtx1ZvuF8J54vHqzZjqAGqBtKbRthj/gG6N627j95+Lrgx08c2npI8ghj+GevM rDFEKyeOVNZuX7Hdy7wbZMEvgzz/ZN6KjZITxtS2oP00zK4ljuioJWH40A/Y78tJQgS0 Rqg+d57Fn374Z3QbGEEeb8sy+MgaaVxUlTUcY85NCnYS5jTiXNDjK2rWqgwhU4rS5K1m VHGA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:references:user-agent:from:to:cc:subject:date :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+vB3aMIvaKKckICZkPdsWnOYEtbX2m0k0QmU48S7bJY=; b=P4CpD/d13BYdbmMiQHdfWWhHByZsPhFn0lnH/V3yOoITJik1d1uSgVaFhXn+rmJXf6 JbEXDbke+IlLPLoDAhzeDznS38D3dc0cNFP02Jprrk98gEtGDH9Xr6e5PPnmV/lf743W TRDOFaXXETf6JOwdHS04YuzF0yjGIkTcJ2kApT3klpopoRuy1p3PH7BTDvUvdhhfvF26 UWg8tpP+MlSjsqmNuQbLxAO5gRNkoDnbC7QdoJxMq+Azm+pQiGXZBN7YsrNin2BAZZX8 nIFGcg1gOrkgvhnKAp+zCu+8alB9jGjztfKcnsul+tz1hY9mwhkN97PpImpxSlyNNwWm x/rA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532d4US1lhSPnr0adaspB6NVt5DqLefsU9S3xHNCzbUzhQd7Zi92 ye/+FwCnfqcPwrqS/o/SHKOATA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwlehjx9Fag0S15fC811LCpErLVUyQqaT0klXtmPlIye5TmpqVXbJUlMrsx92h9WATrFVuaUA== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6381:: with SMTP id p1mr10155010wru.19.1621608347850; Fri, 21 May 2021 07:45:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zen.linaroharston ([51.148.130.216]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y5sm2564312wrp.5.2021.05.21.07.45.44 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 21 May 2021 07:45:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zen (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zen.linaroharston (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11B6C1FF7E; Fri, 21 May 2021 15:45:44 +0100 (BST) References: <20210520195322.205691-1-willianr@redhat.com> <20210520195322.205691-2-willianr@redhat.com> <0f4a1c6c-ddba-ae57-2d55-f59c478dc9c5@redhat.com> <943fcdae-168a-adf8-c82b-b1a88369441c@redhat.com> <87sg2gb5lf.fsf@linaro.org> User-agent: mu4e 1.5.13; emacs 28.0.50 From: Alex =?utf-8?Q?Benn=C3=A9e?= To: Philippe =?utf-8?Q?Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9?= Subject: Re: [RFC 1/1] acceptance tests: rename acceptance to system Date: Fri, 21 May 2021 15:43:13 +0100 In-reply-to: Message-ID: <87mtsob0x3.fsf@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::42b; envelope-from=alex.bennee@linaro.org; helo=mail-wr1-x42b.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Thomas Huth , qemu-devel , Wainer dos Santos Moschetta , Niek Linnenbank , qemu-arm , Michael Rolnik , Willian Rampazzo , Cleber Rosa Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" Philippe Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9 writes: > On 5/21/21 3:03 PM, Alex Benn=C3=A9e wrote: >> Philippe Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9 writes: >>> On 5/21/21 2:28 PM, Willian Rampazzo wrote: >>>> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 4:16 AM Thomas Huth wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 20/05/2021 22.28, Philippe Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9 wrote: >>>>>> On 5/20/21 9:53 PM, Willian Rampazzo wrote: >>>>>>> Conceptually speaking, acceptance tests "are a series of specific t= ests >>>>>>> conducted by the customer in an attempt to uncover product errors b= efore >>>>>>> accepting the software from the developer. Conducted by the end-use= r rather >>>>>>> than software engineers, acceptance testing can range from an infor= mal >>>>>>> =E2=80=9Ctest drive=E2=80=9D to a planned and systematically execut= ed series of scripted >>>>>>> tests" [1]. Every time Pressman refers to the term "acceptance test= ing," he >>>>>>> also refers to user's agreement in the final state of an implemente= d feature. >>>>>>> Today, QEMU is not implementing user acceptance tests as described = by Pressman. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There are other three possible terms we could use to describe what = is currently >>>>>>> QEMU "acceptance" tests: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1 - Integration tests: >>>>>>> - "Integration testing is a systematic technique for constru= cting the >>>>>>> software architecture while at the same time conducting t= ests to >>>>>>> uncover errors associated with interfacing. The objective= is to take >>>>>>> unit-tested components and build a program structure that= has been >>>>>>> dictated by design." [2] >>>>>>> * Note: Sommerville does not have a clear definition of inte= gration >>>>>>> testing. He refers to incremental integration of component= s inside >>>>>>> the system testing (see [3]). >>>>> >>>>> After thinking about this for a while, I agree with you that renaming= the >>>>> "acceptance" tests to "integration" tests is also not a good idea. Wh= en I >>>>> hear "integration" test in the context of the virt stack, I'd rather = expect >>>>> a test suite that picks KVM (i.e. a kernel), QEMU, libvirt and maybe >>>>> virt-manager on top and tests them all together. So we should look fo= r a >>>>> different name indeed. >>>>> >>>>>>> 2 - Validation tests: >>>>>>> - "Validation testing begins at the culmination of integrati= on testing, >>>>>>> when individual components have been exercised, the softw= are is >>>>>>> completely assembled as a package, and interfacing errors= have been >>>>>>> uncovered and corrected. At the validation or system leve= l, the >>>>>>> distinction between different software categories disappe= ars. Testing >>>>>>> focuses on user-visible actions and user-recognizable out= put from the >>>>>>> system." [4] >>>>>>> - "where you expect the system to perform correctly using a = set of test >>>>>>> cases that reflect the system=E2=80=99s expected use." [5] >>>>>>> * Note: the definition of "validation testing" from Sommervi= lle reflects >>>>>>> the same definition found around the Internet, as one of t= he processes >>>>>>> inside the "Verification & Validation (V&V)." In this conc= ept, >>>>>>> validation testing is a high-level definition that covers = unit testing, >>>>>>> functional testing, integration testing, system testing, a= nd acceptance >>>>>>> testing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3 - System tests: >>>>>>> - "verifies that all elements mesh properly and that overall= system >>>>>>> function and performance is achieved." [6] >>>>>>> - "involves integrating components to create a version of th= e system and >>>>>>> then testing the integrated system. System testing checks= that >>>>>>> components are compatible, interact correctly, and transf= er the right >>>>>>> data at the right time across their interfaces." [7] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The tests implemented inside the QEMU "acceptance" directory depend= on the >>>>>>> software completely assembled and, sometimes, on other elements, li= ke operating >>>>>>> system images. In this case, the proposal here is to rename the cur= rent >>>>>>> "acceptance" directory to "system." >>>>>> >>>>>> Are user-mode tests using Avocado also system tests? >>>>>> https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg782505.html >>>>> >>>>> We've indeed got the problem that the word "system" is a little bit >>>>> overloaded in the context of QEMU. We often talk about "system" when >>>>> referring to the qemu-softmmu-xxx emulators (in contrast to the linux= -user >>>>> emulator binaries). For example, the "--disable-system" switch of the >>>>> configure script, or the "build-system" and "check-system" jobs in the >>>>> .gitlab-ci.yml file ... thus this could get quite confusing in the >>>>> .gitlab-ci.yml file afterwards. >>>> >>>> I agree with you here. After I made the changes to the code, I noticed >>>> QEMU has the "system" word spread all over the place. That may confuse >>>> people looking at the "system tests" without much interaction with >>>> software testing terminology. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> So I think renaming "acceptance" to "system" is especially ok if we o= nly >>>>> keep the "softmmu"-related tests in that folder... would it maybe mak= e sense >>>>> to add the linux-user related tests in a separate folder called tests= /user/ >>>>> instead, Philippe? And we should likely rename the current build-syst= em and >>>>> check-system jobs in our gitlab-CI to build-softmmu and check-softmmu= or so? >>>>> >>>> >>>> As I mentioned in Philippe's reply, those tests are still considered >>>> system tests because system testing is the software built and >>>> interacting with external test artifacts in software engineering. >>>> >>>>> Alternatively, what about renaming the "acceptance" tests to "validat= ion" >>>>> instead? That word does not have a duplicated definition in the conte= xt of >>>>> QEMU yet, so I think it would be less confusing. >>>> >>>> While at the beginning of your reply, I started thinking if >>>> "validation" would cause less confusion for the QEMU project. Although >>>> validation testing is a broader concept inside the Verification & >>>> Validation process, encompassing unit testing, functional testing, >>>> integration testing, system testing, and acceptance testing, it may be >>>> an option for the QEMU project. >>>> >>>> While system testing would be the correct terminology to use, if it >>>> causes more confusion, using a less strict terminology, like >>>> validation testing, is valid, in my opinion. >>> >>> This works for me: >>> >>> - tests/system/softmmu >>> - tests/system/user >>> >>> Or validation, as you prefer. >>=20 >> So what are tests/tcg if not user tests? They *mostly* test >> linux-user emulation but of course we have softmmu tests in there as >> well.=20 > > I expect a tests/tcg/ to check a specific TCG feature, which doesn't > have to be user-mode specific (IIRC Xtensa does some sysemu checks). > Also, you control the compiler toolchain, flags, etc... so you can > adapt for a specific feature bit to test, use kludges and so on. Well I won't say there are things that couldn't be tested elsewhere. I think the initial record/replay tests are probably replaceable by the acceptance/whatever tests - and possibly the gdbstub tests as well. > I expect tests in tests/system/ (user/softmmu) to user real-world > binaries, which we aren't modifying. Sometime non-public/released > compiler toolchain has been used. LTP binaries? > > See for example the test referred tests the bFLT loader (beside > testing userland Linux binary for Cortex-M). > > Another example is the Sony PlayStation2 binary testing the > O32 ABI and multiple opcodes from the TX79 SIMD core: > https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg782493.html > > Personally I'm not interested in writing a test for a loader or > multiple opcodes when we have pre-built binaries. For the opcodes > coverage I'd use a TCG plugin to confirm the opcodes have been > used. > > If you think these tests belong to tests/tcg/, I am OK to put > them they, but I don't think adding the Avocado buildsys > machinery to the already-complex tests/tcg/ Makefiles is going > to help us... No I wasn't advocating that - it was more a comment on the naming of things. -ETOOMUCHFRIDAYBIKESHEDDING... > > Regards, > > Phil. --=20 Alex Benn=C3=A9e