[Avocado-devel] RFC: Guidelines for categorizing tests

Fri May 19 14:28:45 UTC 2017

On 05/18/2017 01:07 AM, Satheesh Rajendran wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 17:49 -0400, Cleber Rosa wrote:
>> Introduction
>> ============
>>
>> Avocado allows users to select tests to run based on free form
>> "tags".
>> These tags are given as "docstring directives", that is, special
>> entries on a class or function docstring.
>>
> This would be very helpful and becomes easy way to 
> create a dynamic testsuite based on needs.
> +1

I'm not sure if it was clear enough, but this functionality already
exists in Avocado:

http://avocado-framework.readthedocs.io/en/50.0/WritingTests.html#categorizing-tests

This proposal is about proposing a set of guidelines for using that
feature.

>> As a user of an Avocado based test suite, I'd see value in not
>> **having**
>> to look at all the test tags before realizing that to not run tests
>> that
>> require "super user" permissions I should run::
>>
>>   $ avocado run test.py --filter-by-tags=-root
>>
>> Instead of::
>>
>>   $ avocado run test.py --filter-by-tags=-privileged
>>
>> Not even that, by having different tests as part of the same job,
>> the following very odd sequence of command line options may be
>> needed::
>>
>>   $ avocado run test.py test2.py --filter-by-tags=-root,-privileged
>>
>> So the goal here is to let users familiar with a given Avocado based
>> test, to have fair expectations when running another Avocado based
>> tests.
>>
>> This was initially going to be a documentation update, but I felt
>> that
>> it was not fair to make a formal proposal without without some
>> initial
>> brainstorming.
>>
>> Proposal
>> ========
>>
>> To set the tone for my proposal, I'd like to make most things simple
>> and easy, while allowing for "everything else" to be doable.
>>
>> My general impression is that higher level information about the test
>> itself and its requirements are going to be the most commonly used
>> tags, so they must be easily set.  Some examples follow.
>>
>> Simple (standalone) tags
>> ------------------------
>>
>> Tags by functional area:
>>
>>  * cpu - Exercises a system's CPU
>>  * net - Exercises a system's network devices or networking stack
>>  * storage - Exercises a system's local storage
>>  * fs - Exercises a system's file system
>>
>> Tags by architecture:
>>
>>  * x86_64 - Requires a x86_64 architecture
>>  * ppc64 - Requries a ppc64
>>
>> Tags by access privileges:
>>
>>  * privileged - requires the test to be run with the most privileged,
>>    unrestricted privileges.  For Linux systems, this usually means
>> the
>>    root account
>>
>> Composed (key:value) tags
>> -------------------------
>>
>> The more specific tags can be achieved by composing a predefined key
>> with a value.  For instance, to tag a test as needing a specific
>> CPU flag:
>>
>>  * cpu_flag:vmx
>>
>> Or a specific PCI device:
>>
>>  * pci_id:8086:08b2
>>
>> Or even a software package:
>>
>>  * package:gcc
>>
>> Or a package group altogether:
>>
>>  * package_group:development-tools
>>
>> Some examples
>> -------------
>>
>>  * ``cpu,x86_64`` - The test exercises the CPU and requires a
>>    ``x86_64`` based platform
>>
>>  * ``net,privileged,pci_id:14e4:1657`` - The test exercises either a
>>    network device or the network stack, needs super user privileges
>>    and a "Broadcom Limited NetXtreme BCM5719 Gigabit Ethernet PCIe
>>    (rev 01)" device.
>>
>> Looking at test tags
>> ====================
>>
>> Currently, there's no way to actually list the test tags from the
>> command line, alongside the test name themselves.  An RFE for fixing
>> this has been filed at https://trello.com/c/NXrbKEJC .
>>
>> Do users have to provide all the ``--filter-by-tags`` themselves?
>> =================================================================
>>
>> The test runner can certainly help here, getting system information
>> when the job starts, and feeding them to the filtering.  This is yet
>> another reason why coming up with a good set of guidelines for
>> tagging
>> tests is important.
>>
>> In some ways, this can be seen similar to a dependency resolution
>> mechanism for tests, only that at this point it will not resolve the
>> requirements.  It will only filter out tests that can't (or
>> shouldn't)
>> be loaded on the current system.
>>
>> Effectively, instead of many in-tests checks, and many SKIPs/CANCELs,
>> the system information can be loaded once, and the only relevant
>> tests
>> will be part of the tests suite.
>>
>> A list of the tests that were filtered out from the job test suite
>> can
>> certainly be a useful part of the job results.
>>
>> As in every RFC, feedback is extremely welcome!
>>
> 
> I assume this has to be at the overall testcase level, can not
> be applied to multiplexed params. 
> for example:
> certain multiplexer options to be filtered in the same testcase.
> 
> As the proposal is to use doc-strings, I assume it can not be done?
> 

Exactly, it's done at the test level, before they're combined with variants.

I'm not quite sure that it can't be done, but definitely it's out of the
scope of this specific RFC.

Cheers!

-- 
Cleber Rosa
[ Sr Software Engineer - Virtualization Team - Red Hat ]
[ Avocado Test Framework - avocado-framework.github.io ]
[  7ABB 96EB 8B46 B94D 5E0F  E9BB 657E 8D33 A5F2 09F3  ]

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/avocado-devel/attachments/20170519/bf11fa80/attachment.sig>