Hi Tim,

That was quite a detailed reply.
Thanks a lot.
Fuego looks promising, I am looking forward to the future releases of Fuego.

Regards,
Dhinakar

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Bird, Timothy <Tim.Bird@sony.com> wrote:

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dhinakar k on Tuesday, March 28, 2017 7:34 PM
> >
> > Hi Tim,
> >
> > That was a very detailed reply.
> > Thank you very much.
> >
> > Just one follow up question.
> > How does Fuego compare with Avocado?
> > If you had checked it out already please let me know.
>
> I did take a quick look at Avacado a while back, and put
> some notes at:
> http://bird.org/fuego/Other_test_systems#Avacado
>
> Avacado has some very nice features.
> It seems like it excels at handling large test matrices.  It has yaml
> files to define the different test variations.
>
> They also interface well with Jenkins - a single command-line from a
> Jenkins
> job can start an avocado test, and they product output that is easily
> parsed
> by existing Jenkins post-processors.
> e.g. 'avacado run /bin/true sleeptest passtest --xunit
> "$WORKSPACE/results.xml"...'
>
> They have an 'avacado server' concept, where each host can execute jobs
> from
> another machine (I believe - I haven't tried it out).
>
> So far, it looks like Avacado is used for virtualization testing.  I don't
> see a
> lot of different tests that run on this framework.
>
> Here are some of the major difference, that I can see (this is with limited
> study of Avacado, so I apologize for any omissions of features on their
> part):
> 1) Fuego is both a test framework, and a distribution of tests themselves.
>   * We have about 60 tests now, with about 90 in our 'next' branch
>      * the goal is to have hundreds of tests available, for a wide variety
> of system features and issues
> 2) Fuego provides a consistent, containerized back end (docker) so that the
>  builds of the test software can be uniform between different sites.
>    * this will help when comparing results from different sites
>        * multi-site results comparisons are not done yet, but on our
> roadmap
> 3) Fuego has a multi-node test API (host/target), that is specially geared
> for
> embedded linux testing
>   * the footprint on the target is intentionally very small, using
> existing POSIX features
>      * IOW - there is no specialized target agent on the target board
> (except for a transport agent, like sshd or adb)
>   * Fuego is geared towards testing of final production images of the
> software stacks for products
> 4) Fuego is behind Avacado in terms of:
>    a) unified test ouput (we're working on that now)
>    b) test results sharing
>        * (also in-progress - 'runs' can be packaged and shared now to a
> central server, in our 'next' branch)
>        * however, there's only rudimentary test display and analysis on
> the Fuego server at the moment
>            * Avacado seems to be using Jenkins for this - and we should
> look at them more closely to see what they're doing
>
> There are more, but hopefully this is helpful to see some of the
> differences.
>  -- Tim
>
>