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

[Willian Rampazzo <wrampazz@redhat.com>]

On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 12:23 PM Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 21 May 2021 at 16:13, Willian Rampazzo <wrampazz@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 11:29 AM Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > This does raise the question of what we're actually trying
> > > to distinguish. It seems to me somewhat that what tests/acceptance/
> > > actually contains that makes it interestingly different from other
> > > tests/ stuff is that it's specifically "tests using the Avocado
> > > framework". On that theory we might name it tests/avocado/.
> >
> > I think the updated README.rst from this RFC, inside the system
> > (originally acceptance) folder, is a good description of what these
> > tests should be: "This directory contains system tests. They're
> > usually higher level, and may interact with external resources and
> > with various guest operating systems." I can improve it, if needed.
> >
> > We are using Avocado Framework as a tool to accomplish the above
> > description, but I don't think we should strictly use it if there is
> > another way to accomplish what those tests are supposed to be. Calling
> > them "avocado" tests may restrict the intent of them, in my opinion.
>
> But the main reason IMHO that we have them in a separate directory is
> because that's where we have all the avocado machinery. I think the
> sharing of the machinery is what dictates whether a test winds up in
> tests/acceptance, tests/qtest, tests/tcg or tests/qemu-iotests
> much more than whether it is "usually higher level" or more of a
> unit test or whatever. If we ever added some other test framework for
> doing system tests, we'd probably want to put it in its own
> directory rather than lumping all its support machinery and
> build files in together with the avocado based tests.

Okay, I understand your point. With the organization of tests under
the test folder that QEMU has today, I agree with you.

>
> thanks
> -- PMM
>