On 5/21/21 3:03 PM, Alex Bennée wrote: > Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> writes: >> On 5/21/21 2:28 PM, Willian Rampazzo wrote: >>> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 4:16 AM Thomas Huth <th...@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.
I expect a tests/tcg/ to check a specific TCG feature, which doesn't have to be user-mode specific (IIRC Xtensa does some sysemu checks). Also, you control the compiler toolchain, flags, etc... so you can adapt for a specific feature bit to test, use kludges and so on. I expect tests in tests/system/ (user/softmmu) to user real-world binaries, which we aren't modifying. Sometime non-public/released compiler toolchain has been used. See for example the test referred tests the bFLT loader (beside testing userland Linux binary for Cortex-M). Another example is the Sony PlayStation2 binary testing the O32 ABI and multiple opcodes from the TX79 SIMD core: https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg782493.html Personally I'm not interested in writing a test for a loader or multiple opcodes when we have pre-built binaries. For the opcodes coverage I'd use a TCG plugin to confirm the opcodes have been used. If you think these tests belong to tests/tcg/, I am OK to put them they, but I don't think adding the Avocado buildsys machinery to the already-complex tests/tcg/ Makefiles is going to help us... Regards, Phil.