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 2AA20C433ED for ; Fri, 21 May 2021 12:38:12 +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 87A35613CA for ; Fri, 21 May 2021 12:38:11 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 87A35613CA 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]:37424 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lk4Pq-00031i-Gp for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Fri, 21 May 2021 08:38:10 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:47336) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lk4Jb-0003Mi-U9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 21 May 2021 08:31:43 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]:56810) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lk4JW-0005A7-5E for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 21 May 2021 08:31:43 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1621600297; 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=IX7o9e7g186bTgNjwSBUpRldjeF3ty6TyquUxbjqPAw=; b=LkT7NhXaIgz9CUFb1lWJembzmTaVSGVJ7jhX1eqyzxmwqVIOb3xP6Ey2RdetE4Xz+k5cUP zL+TAxJbfvDII6ZejFa5xuzZEZpbtIn1ZU6lnP6T9Sioznh5ADCIbrWLR8Y8VIigkBNsPl afnFKpVm3sMU7Z9IxUIeTpCR468DOro= Received: from mail-wr1-f70.google.com (mail-wr1-f70.google.com [209.85.221.70]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-32-RVpPQV1bOz25v1ToyC4_OA-1; Fri, 21 May 2021 08:31:35 -0400 X-MC-Unique: RVpPQV1bOz25v1ToyC4_OA-1 Received: by mail-wr1-f70.google.com with SMTP id g3-20020adfd1e30000b02901122a4b850aso1396421wrd.20 for ; Fri, 21 May 2021 05:31:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=IX7o9e7g186bTgNjwSBUpRldjeF3ty6TyquUxbjqPAw=; b=QPgdAkHvjb0qJeNkz1alM32v5TYWG9jNhU3qj4xjiwf86rnUKOgBtUI4ub9CGqiPys 9wRUlGkD30t+037w+X5sVloa/8uqO0xPrwAyZHuLNJuWi9MNQGNP5PSuRiMJWr2bswpl FuBnT1Wa3ZRz0T88g/iEtYejfCJR8TNbh41+0N7cQ1vRN2TmkA/l3lUz/+cwz4Z/D+Nc L1arJ+x4bAx6DRKfdrLiHuX345iMlLsdphhmRfiKkHKi94SWlGyBQ2cKo9fbYlQw3+TO d9XCH3yClnYAA1CieuOhXwVqr1QGwxHPVxpvcyy4n6Z0mLjFre2XitHpUshJUSXmPPzP zFWA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533I+7nL5T1PCGC+UnoCTIh12kiYvWB1miMX6nd7H9oJgPJoOrMD mT1spuZ1jZLjUlp3QGjTT9FUe13FrR6WIxDIt2vxWHyNHjVa2byqRatZz/ywSMGOkY2xk12IW6l vOixxgvYhfHgaeps= X-Received: by 2002:a1c:7f86:: with SMTP id a128mr8341608wmd.20.1621600294386; Fri, 21 May 2021 05:31:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwOp5EGyc9yNYzLIT72z/VZZUOzOmoQDa/+6arQ7qeIfdIhu8u1TCFmWrBAQJSXJ/m0Mh7ugA== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:7f86:: with SMTP id a128mr8341580wmd.20.1621600294069; Fri, 21 May 2021 05:31:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.36] (31.red-83-51-215.dynamicip.rima-tde.net. [83.51.215.31]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c194sm12719556wme.46.2021.05.21.05.31.33 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 21 May 2021 05:31:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [RFC 1/1] acceptance tests: rename acceptance to system To: Willian Rampazzo , Thomas Huth References: <20210520195322.205691-1-willianr@redhat.com> <20210520195322.205691-2-willianr@redhat.com> <0f4a1c6c-ddba-ae57-2d55-f59c478dc9c5@redhat.com> <943fcdae-168a-adf8-c82b-b1a88369441c@redhat.com> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Philippe_Mathieu-Daud=c3=a9?= Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 May 2021 14:31:32 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=philmd@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.133.124; envelope-from=philmd@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=-0.374, 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: qemu-devel , Wainer dos Santos Moschetta , Niek Linnenbank , qemu-arm , 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 5/21/21 2:28 PM, Willian Rampazzo wrote: > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 4:16 AM Thomas Huth 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. Thanks for sharing the background references, Phil.