From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50AA5C433ED for ; Fri, 21 May 2021 07:18:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6474611BD for ; Fri, 21 May 2021 07:18:17 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org A6474611BD Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:43346 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ljzQG-0007M9-NZ for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Fri, 21 May 2021 03:18:16 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:42026) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ljzOy-0006Dd-Lq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 21 May 2021 03:16:56 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.124]:42419) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ljzOv-0006EU-Kn for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 21 May 2021 03:16:55 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1621581412; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=P+hLjuQ64vmuAnUmwowLfI+1Ab2JGLvYlh/ae84x6bU=; b=SUWoOefT2cSu5M1dt/GsmY6Qs5q/XhM7L/THezgHEoXCVBsiITvGoVk4q4glZG2+oPrVmF G9S6NFPIOD0gFs8jTpriVJdF4CvUtbIn1wbrHb8yBmLNWTJQ4An5i4QViZBhmRToqshWoq Jyst8Z88WTgYvjZ0gSI3BR3Kj8HClto= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-215-u-7WYjLyMUGFNkav-jlzQw-1; Fri, 21 May 2021 03:16:49 -0400 X-MC-Unique: u-7WYjLyMUGFNkav-jlzQw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34555107ACCA; Fri, 21 May 2021 07:16:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from thuth.remote.csb (ovpn-112-113.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.112.113]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 360095D74B; Fri, 21 May 2021 07:16:37 +0000 (UTC) To: =?UTF-8?Q?Philippe_Mathieu-Daud=c3=a9?= , Willian Rampazzo , qemu-devel@nongnu.org References: <20210520195322.205691-1-willianr@redhat.com> <20210520195322.205691-2-willianr@redhat.com> <0f4a1c6c-ddba-ae57-2d55-f59c478dc9c5@redhat.com> From: Thomas Huth Subject: Re: [RFC 1/1] acceptance tests: rename acceptance to system Message-ID: <943fcdae-168a-adf8-c82b-b1a88369441c@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 21 May 2021 09:16:36 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <0f4a1c6c-ddba-ae57-2d55-f59c478dc9c5@redhat.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=thuth@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.205.24.124; envelope-from=thuth@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -31 X-Spam_score: -3.2 X-Spam_bar: --- X-Spam_report: (-3.2 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.39, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Wainer dos Santos Moschetta , Niek Linnenbank , qemu-arm@nongnu.org, Michael Rolnik , Cleber Rosa , =?UTF-8?Q?Alex_Benn=c3=a9e?= Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" 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. 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? 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. Thomas