Re: [RFC 1/1] acceptance tests: rename acceptance to system

["Alex Bennée" <alex.bennee@linaro.org>]

Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com> writes:

> On 5/21/21 2:28 PM, Willian Rampazzo wrote:
>> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 4:16 AM Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 20/05/2021 22.28, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>>> On 5/20/21 9:53 PM, Willian Rampazzo wrote:
>>>>> Conceptually speaking, acceptance tests "are a series of specific tests
>>>>> conducted by the customer in an attempt to uncover product errors before
>>>>> accepting the software from the developer. Conducted by the end-user rather
>>>>> than software engineers, acceptance testing can range from an informal
>>>>> “test drive” to a planned and systematically executed series of scripted
>>>>> tests" [1]. Every time Pressman refers to the term "acceptance testing," he
>>>>> also refers to user's agreement in the final state of an implemented 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 constructing the
>>>>>           software architecture while at the same time conducting tests 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 integration
>>>>>          testing. He refers to incremental integration of components 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. When 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 for a
>>> different name indeed.
>>>
>>>>>    2 - Validation tests:
>>>>>        - "Validation testing begins at the culmination of integration testing,
>>>>>           when individual components have been exercised, the software is
>>>>>           completely assembled as a package, and interfacing errors have been
>>>>>           uncovered and corrected. At the validation or system level, the
>>>>>           distinction between different software categories disappears. Testing
>>>>>           focuses on user-visible actions and user-recognizable output from the
>>>>>           system." [4]
>>>>>        - "where you expect the system to perform correctly using a set of test
>>>>>           cases that reflect the system’s expected use." [5]
>>>>>        * Note: the definition of "validation testing" from Sommerville reflects
>>>>>          the same definition found around the Internet, as one of the processes
>>>>>          inside the "Verification & Validation (V&V)." In this concept,
>>>>>          validation testing is a high-level definition that covers unit testing,
>>>>>          functional testing, integration testing, system testing, and 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 the system and
>>>>>           then testing the integrated system. System testing checks that
>>>>>           components are compatible, interact correctly, and transfer 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, like operating
>>>>> system images. In this case, the proposal here is to rename the current
>>>>> "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 only
>>> keep the "softmmu"-related tests in that folder... would it maybe make 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-system 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 "validation"
>>> instead? That word does not have a duplicated definition in the context 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.

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. 

>
> Thanks for sharing the background references,
>
> Phil.


-- 
Alex Bennée