Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH] doc: update unittests doc

["Nicholas Piggin" <npiggin@gmail.com>]

On Fri May 3, 2024 at 4:56 PM AEST, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 03/05/2024 08.00, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > Some cleanups and a comment about the check parameter restrictions.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >   docs/unittests.txt | 12 +++++++-----
> >   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/docs/unittests.txt b/docs/unittests.txt
> > index 3192a60ec..7cf2c55ad 100644
> > --- a/docs/unittests.txt
> > +++ b/docs/unittests.txt
> > @@ -15,8 +15,8 @@ unittests.cfg format
> >   
> >   # is the comment symbol, all following contents of the line is ignored.
> >   
> > -Each unit test is defined with a [unit-test-name] line, followed by
> > -a set of parameters that control how the test case is run. The name is
> > +Each unit test is defined with a [unit-test-name] line, followed by a
> > +set of parameters that control how the test case is run. The name is
>
> This looks like it's only moving the "a" from one line to the other? I'd 
> suggest to drop this hunk.

Sure. Might have just re-wrapped it but it's not a big deal.

> >   arbitrary and appears in the status reporting output.
> >   
> >   Parameters appear on their own lines under the test name, and have a
> > @@ -62,8 +62,8 @@ groups
> >   groups = <group_name1> <group_name2> ...
> >   
> >   Used to group the test cases for the `run_tests.sh -g ...` run group
> > -option. Adding a test to the nodefault group will cause it to not be
> > -run by default.
> > +option. The group name is arbitrary, aside from the nodefault group
> > +which makes the test to not be run by default.
>
> Actually, there are some other "magic" groups that have been introduced in 
> the course of time:
>
> - The "migration" group is required for migration tests.

Ah yes good point.

> - The "panic" group is required for tests where success means that the
>    guest crashed (but it's currently only used on s390x).

I actually didn't pay much attention to the crashing tests before but
I should have. Maybe we should add this to a common harness selftest
too.

> We might want to document those groups here, too?

Yeah, hold off merging this for now.

Thanks,
Nick