From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51C1B1FF09B for ; Mon, 14 Sep 2026 10:09:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 12E33214CD; Mon, 14 Sep 2026 10:09:36 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <16b8427f-e5bd-4672-ad16-1cab834891a0@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2026 10:09:31 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH qemu-server 2/6] tests: hotplug: add some test cases To: Dominik Csapak , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260910110832.2822954-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <20260910110832.2822954-3-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <26e7412a-c382-4ae2-8830-26741784a8c1@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1789373358610 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.635 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: ATD7PU4SH3ZXRQGB5OFAEKOP6IU4ZFZD X-Message-ID-Hash: ATD7PU4SH3ZXRQGB5OFAEKOP6IU4ZFZD X-MailFrom: f.ebner@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Am 11.09.26 um 12:11 PM schrieb Dominik Csapak: > On 9/10/26 4:24 PM, Fiona Ebner wrote: >> Am 10.09.26 um 1:29 PM schrieb Dominik Csapak: >>> + >>> +# resulting config >>> +arch: aarch64 >>> +bios: ovmf >>> +bootdisk: scsi0 >>> +cores: 2 >>> +efidisk0: local:8006/vm-8006-disk-2.qcow2,efitype=4m >>> +memory: 2048 >>> +name: hotplug >>> +net0: virtio=A2:C0:43:77:08:A0,bridge=vmbr0 >>> +ostype: l26 >>> +scsi0: local:8006/vm-8006-disk-0.qcow2,size=32G >>> +scsihw: virtio-scsi-pci >>> +smbios1: uuid=7b10d7af-b932-4c66-b2c3-3996152ec465 >>> +sockets: 1 >>> +virtio1: local:8006/vm-8006-disk-1.qcow2,iothread=1,size=32G >>> +vmgenid: c773c261-d800-4348-9f5d-167fadd53cf8 >> >> Would just recording and the changes be more sensible to avoid lots of >> redundant information? That could also already live in the test >> definition with the test runner checking that nothing additional is >> changed. In most cases it will directly overlap with what is in >> [PENDING], so you don't even need to specify any additional expected >> changes. >> >> What do you think? > > what about not recording the resulting config at all as an expected > file, but simply check in the test if there is still a > [PENDING] section, mark tests where this is expected and > fail where this is not the case? > > then we could have a simple file with the recorded qmp/hmp calls > in a list without any comment structure Yeah, sounds good too :)