On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 12:11:17PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 07/04/2020 12.59, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Following Markus thread on deprecating unmaintained (untested) code > > (machines) [1] and the effort done to gather the information shared in > > the replies [2], and the various acceptance tests added, is it > > feasible to require for the next release that each new device/machine > > is provided a test covering it? > > > > If no, what is missing? > > If a qtest is feasible, yes, I think we should require one for new > devices.
qtest is not feasible, at least not for all kinds of devices. You can't talk to usb devices for example, and changing that effectively requires writing uhci/ohci/ehci/xhci drivers so one can submit usb transfers in qtest. The current qtests for usb devices is basically hot-plug and unplug it and check qmp doesn't throw an error. Better that nothing, but there is zero functional testing and changing that is seriously non-trivial. cheers, Gerd