From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: [OSSTEST PATCH 0/4] Introduction of the patches. Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 09:32:23 +0000 Message-ID: <1417426343.23604.72.camel@citrix.com> References: <1417160727-3100-1-git-send-email-longtaox.pang@intel.com> <21624.27112.826272.933990@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <9E79D1C9A97CFD4097BCE431828FDD31A723E1@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <9E79D1C9A97CFD4097BCE431828FDD31A723E1@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: "Hu, Robert" Cc: "wei.liu2@citrix.com" , "Pang, LongtaoX" , Ian Jackson , "Zheng, Di" , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Mon, 2014-12-01 at 05:27 +0000, Hu, Robert wrote: > > But I'm not convinced that these patches take the right approach to > > achieving that. There seems to be a great deal of duplication of > > code. I think we should have a conversation about what moving parts > > are necessary for nested HVM testing. > Agree with you we shall reuse existing ts-* if possible. Actually I had thought of this approach but later I > defeated myself because I thought ts-* shall compromise itself as a whole test case and better not to touch them. > Now I see that ts- is more like components to constitute a test case (my current understanding is your job == test cases). Have you seen the README at the top-level of osstest.git? It starts with a terminology section, which includes defining what a job is: a sequence of test steps, which could also be called a test case. The ts-* prefix stands for test step BTW. There is certainly scope for improving the docs though so please do ask if anything is unclear and we can improve the docs. Ian.