Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/5] Acceptance tests: add quick VNC tests

[Cleber Rosa <crosa@redhat.com>]

On 05/29/2018 01:52 PM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 10:59:37AM -0400, Cleber Rosa wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 05/29/2018 10:32 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 12:27:46PM -0400, Cleber Rosa wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 05/25/2018 01:37 AM, Fam Zheng wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 05/24 20:58, Cleber Rosa wrote:
>>>>>> This patch adds a few simple behavior tests for VNC.  These tests
>>>>>> introduce manipulation of the QEMUMachine arguments, by setting
>>>>>> the arguments, instead of adding to the existing ones.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm confused by this. The code uses 'add_args', so it does add to the arguments,
>>>>> no?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And you should be.  I changed the code to just add args, and forgot to
>>>> update the commit message.  If a better example comes up that requires
>>>> setting arguments, I'll get back to this.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Cleber Rosa <crosa@redhat.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>  tests/acceptance/test_vnc.py | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>  1 file changed, 50 insertions(+)
>>>>>>  create mode 100644 tests/acceptance/test_vnc.py
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/tests/acceptance/test_vnc.py b/tests/acceptance/test_vnc.py
>>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>>> index 0000000000..9d9a35cf55
>>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>>> +++ b/tests/acceptance/test_vnc.py
>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
>>>>>
>>>>> Copyright header is missing here too.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Indeed.
>>>>
>>>>> Fam
>>>>>
>>>>>> +from avocado_qemu import Test
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +class Vnc(Test):
>>>>>
>>>>> Should VncTest be a better class name?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm favoring simpler names.  If you think about the complete test names,
>>>> it's already too verbose IMO: "test_vnc.Vnc.test_no_vnc".
>>>>
>>>> That's actually an interesting point: how would you feel about dropping
>>>> the "test_" prefix from the file names?
>>>
>>> I would like this.  The file is already inside a tests/acceptance
>>> directory.
>>>
>>> About the class name, I would be less surprised when reading the
>>> code if it was called "VncTest", but I won't object to "Vnc" if
>>> you prefer it.
>>>
>>
>> We already gained one simplification by dropping the "test_" file
>> prefix, so I wouldn't mind adding the "Test" suffix to the test classes.
>>
>> Now, before I do, consider that when reading the code you'll find:
>>
>>    class Vnc(Test):
>>       ...
>>
>> Which IMO makes it pretty clear that this is a test class.  And as you
>> said it yourself, those files are already in a tests/acceptance directory.
> 
> Yes, he context makes it clear it's a test class, but the pattern
> is still unusual because class names are normally meaningful when
> they are referenced elsewhere.  However, in this case it doesn't
> matter too much because there are no references to "Vnc" in the
> rest of the code.
> 
> 
>>
>> So back to you (for the last time, I promise): would you like me to add
>> the Test suffix to all test classes?
> 
> It's up to you.  I'd add them, but I won't complain too loudly if
> you prefer to not add it.  :)
> 

OK.  I'll listen to my intuition here, as it's telling me pretty loudly
that it will be seen as a good thing "soon", when we're looking at the
result of hundreds of tests! ;)

- Cleber.