Re: [PATCH v5 0/4] RFC: New proof-of-concept based exeter tests

On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 10:40:48PM +0200, Stefano Brivio wrote:

On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 20:54:52 +1000 David Gibson wrote:

...

Here's a new approach to building passt tests with exeter. This new one no longer uses Avocado in the default case, although it would still be possible to manually run the exeter based tests with Avocado.

Here's another draft of my work on testing passt with Avocado and the exeter library I recently created. It includes Cleber's patch adding some basic Avocado tests and builds on that.

For now this only does simple tests, to show how the integration could work. It adds some new trivial "smoke tests" and converts the linter and build checks to exeter. More complex tests will require building the sinte/pesto library we've discussed. A lot of the work for that already exists in my earlier exeter test series, but it will need some rework to split it into a separate component.

v5: * Updated according to Stefano's review - Fixed a number of whitespace errors - Improved many comments and variable names to make things clearer * New patch adding parallel test execution with BATS * Improved autodetection of exeter tests using "exetool probe"

This works on my setup and looks good to me, I just have two comments:

- test names are still the same as before (not exactly descriptive, say, 'make_passt'). I already reported this on v4, I'm not sure what was your conclusion about it

Sorry, I missed that comment on v4. exeter test ids are by design machine-friendly identifiers more than they are human-friendly names or descriptions. There are a few reasons for that: * The ids need to be passed around between test and runner both on the command line and via stdio. Limiting them to characters that are identifier friendly in most languages significantly reduces the chances of screwing up quoting. * In some existing Python cases, and maybe more language cases in future, the ids are auto-generated, e.g. for a matrix or composition of tests. That works more naturally for identifiers than names/descriptions. * Identifiers are more amenable to structured formatting grouping related tests together, which is useful for filtering out groups of test by glob/regexp. * I like having a succinct id to refer to tests by rather than a waffly English description I'm not opposed to having an (optional) human-readable name or description for tests in addition to the id. It would complexify the exeter protocol, of course, which I'm trying to keep super simple. Then again, I have several other things in mind that would need per-test metadata, so it's probably is worth it.

- I didn't check (yet) what happens when I run this as ./ci (for example, from the pre-push hook), if generated web links are still okay. I'll do that soon unless you can have a look first

I don't really know how to check that. I don't think there's any reason it wouldn't work. -- David Gibson (he or they) | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you, not the other way | around. http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson