Hi Thomas, On 1/13/21 6:30 AM, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 12/01/2021 19.50, Wainer dos Santos Moschetta wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 1/12/21 1:40 PM, Thomas Huth wrote: >>> Let's gather the POWER-related tests in a separate file. >> >> >> Did you consider having others ppc/ppc64 boot tests together too? >> >> Some candidates: >> >> tests/acceptance/boot_linux.py:BootLinuxPPC64.test_pseries_tcg >> tests/acceptance/boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_ppc64_e500 >> tests/acceptance/boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_ppc_g3beige >> tests/acceptance/boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_ppc_mac99 > > The e500, g3beige and mac99 tests are depending on the > do_test_advcal_2018() function in that file, so I think they should > rather stay there. > >> tests/acceptance/ppc_prep_40p.py:IbmPrep40pMachine.test_factory_firmware_and_netbsd >> tests/acceptance/ppc_prep_40p.py:IbmPrep40pMachine.test_openbios_192m >> tests/acceptance/ppc_prep_40p.py:IbmPrep40pMachine.test_openbios_and_netbsd >> > > That's a good point, I did not notice that file when writing my patches. > Philippe, since you've created this ppc_prep_40p.py file, what do you > think, should it be merged with the other ppc tests, or shall we rather > keep this separate?
The choice was deliberate: the PReP machine has a different set of maintainers. If possible when we have a particular section in MAINTAINERS I'd like to use it as separation, to let the maintainers track changes in tests. In this example, Hervé is interested to look for PReP related files, but doesn't have bandwidth to look at all PPC patches. If this doesn't scale, I suggested (was it on the list or directly to Willian?) to add a Python script to map Avocado test tags to MAINTAINERS entry, so 1/ maintainers could run all tests linked to their subsystem by naming the subsystem, and 2/ when a test fails we know which maintainer to contact. Regards, Phil.
