diff options
author | Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> | 2021-09-07 16:27:08 +0200 |
---|---|---|
committer | Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> | 2021-10-01 19:04:45 +0200 |
commit | bcfdfae78f111fa3c0f81b2708098a545201bb68 (patch) | |
tree | 1910bcc5f6696570e70a895a860131ae70f52018 /docs/devel/ci-definitions.rst.inc | |
parent | f701ecec2bbaae2d04985eba87924a7329534e9a (diff) |
docs: name included files ".rst.inc"
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'docs/devel/ci-definitions.rst.inc')
-rw-r--r-- | docs/devel/ci-definitions.rst.inc | 121 |
1 files changed, 121 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/docs/devel/ci-definitions.rst.inc b/docs/devel/ci-definitions.rst.inc new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..32e22ff468 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/devel/ci-definitions.rst.inc @@ -0,0 +1,121 @@ +Definition of terms +=================== + +This section defines the terms used in this document and correlates them with +what is currently used on QEMU. + +Automated tests +--------------- + +An automated test is written on a test framework using its generic test +functions/classes. The test framework can run the tests and report their +success or failure [1]_. + +An automated test has essentially three parts: + +1. The test initialization of the parameters, where the expected parameters, + like inputs and expected results, are set up; +2. The call to the code that should be tested; +3. An assertion, comparing the result from the previous call with the expected + result set during the initialization of the parameters. If the result + matches the expected result, the test has been successful; otherwise, it has + failed. + +Unit testing +------------ + +A unit test is responsible for exercising individual software components as a +unit, like interfaces, data structures, and functionality, uncovering errors +within the boundaries of a component. The verification effort is in the +smallest software unit and focuses on the internal processing logic and data +structures. A test case of unit tests should be designed to uncover errors due +to erroneous computations, incorrect comparisons, or improper control flow [2]_. + +On QEMU, unit testing is represented by the 'check-unit' target from 'make'. + +Functional testing +------------------ + +A functional test focuses on the functional requirement of the software. +Deriving sets of input conditions, the functional tests should fully exercise +all the functional requirements for a program. Functional testing is +complementary to other testing techniques, attempting to find errors like +incorrect or missing functions, interface errors, behavior errors, and +initialization and termination errors [3]_. + +On QEMU, functional testing is represented by the 'check-qtest' target from +'make'. + +System testing +-------------- + +System tests ensure all application elements mesh properly while the overall +functionality and performance are achieved [4]_. Some or all system components +are integrated to create a complete system to be tested as a whole. System +testing ensures that components are compatible, interact correctly, and +transfer the right data at the right time across their interfaces. As system +testing focuses on interactions, use case-based testing is a practical approach +to system testing [5]_. Note that, in some cases, system testing may require +interaction with third-party software, like operating system images, databases, +networks, and so on. + +On QEMU, system testing is represented by the 'check-acceptance' target from +'make'. + +Flaky tests +----------- + +A flaky test is defined as a test that exhibits both a passing and a failing +result with the same code on different runs. Some usual reasons for an +intermittent/flaky test are async wait, concurrency, and test order dependency +[6]_. + +Gating +------ + +A gate restricts the move of code from one stage to another on a +test/deployment pipeline. The step move is granted with approval. The approval +can be a manual intervention or a set of tests succeeding [7]_. + +On QEMU, the gating process happens during the pull request. The approval is +done by the project leader running its own set of tests. The pull request gets +merged when the tests succeed. + +Continuous Integration (CI) +--------------------------- + +Continuous integration (CI) requires the builds of the entire application and +the execution of a comprehensive set of automated tests every time there is a +need to commit any set of changes [8]_. The automated tests can be composed of +the unit, functional, system, and other tests. + +Keynotes about continuous integration (CI) [9]_: + +1. System tests may depend on external software (operating system images, + firmware, database, network). +2. It may take a long time to build and test. It may be impractical to build + the system being developed several times per day. +3. If the development platform is different from the target platform, it may + not be possible to run system tests in the developer’s private workspace. + There may be differences in hardware, operating system, or installed + software. Therefore, more time is required for testing the system. + +References +---------- + +.. [1] Sommerville, Ian (2016). Software Engineering. p. 233. +.. [2] Pressman, Roger S. & Maxim, Bruce R. (2020). Software Engineering, + A Practitioner’s Approach. p. 48, 376, 378, 381. +.. [3] Pressman, Roger S. & Maxim, Bruce R. (2020). Software Engineering, + A Practitioner’s Approach. p. 388. +.. [4] Pressman, Roger S. & Maxim, Bruce R. (2020). Software Engineering, + A Practitioner’s Approach. Software Engineering, p. 377. +.. [5] Sommerville, Ian (2016). Software Engineering. p. 59, 232, 240. +.. [6] Luo, Qingzhou, et al. An empirical analysis of flaky tests. + Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on + Foundations of Software Engineering. 2014. +.. [7] Humble, Jez & Farley, David (2010). Continuous Delivery: + Reliable Software Releases Through Build, Test, and Deployment, p. 122. +.. [8] Humble, Jez & Farley, David (2010). Continuous Delivery: + Reliable Software Releases Through Build, Test, and Deployment, p. 55. +.. [9] Sommerville, Ian (2016). Software Engineering. p. 743. |