From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 961BE439A4; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 09:50:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EEFA402BD; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 09:50:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AA47402B8; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 09:50:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AB485C03EB; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 03:50:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 23 Jan 2024 03:50:27 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1705999827; x=1706086227; bh=VUTtmmWmr/KH9ZMS4HNHIwp9t5F4VSB6xl7fyCWXRVU=; b= b+UW1mYc5TsmyGufdBNiF+3jcpptgCb8qaMeGfPza46O1S/aDbv2wtBryOIELKEe aopu/m+oBOT90npeMEAB2k1RXsTzLatdjdhnMCQ8joD1YH5B6uS4bfgoypDAWjob Wo0IPLV2fGD8S5fvBxviE78lwCFtrTaLGkgLM5AAW0lwDX7ddhQ6XTEbY0iQ6TOL XuSjE4IcHTTPQSD9wqpokAKbsw3n6OzMs3bwAFuo2cIzWg2D2HrRtaZfNwJc70iI r2lnH5UCOLL79Vr1NOdrjcMfEaAm2l6c9K/iAWnr+YknJzY+gGZ/8kJpdkrCHV5u XhrbDWe9MK4fiTLDgf76MQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t=1705999827; x= 1706086227; bh=VUTtmmWmr/KH9ZMS4HNHIwp9t5F4VSB6xl7fyCWXRVU=; b=A +2STSlRO9Wt3F2foh6ukhtaSaPPGVvL62XPo/swWWW4KAng5ctTpV0xshjmt74Nk 12d/ZeG/QEJlq+z9cDR+yINYQHcbqRrKyXwEkj84n5CACYlDRAjgPpb/AkhRKFuz 2yqB6VeWmAPUklbXzFokjklR2SA7W0JoMRIEUG24l6SZUdBq+Uz0tNwSzR0Ag2q9 NFth21w+Pe+pNT/cUbB1j+BBCe5UDysfi2sOt2W+SCSyijIZb2jabjTJwvJjduHF MWdp83gKP8jS5e/16EcKetA7KbfvQuFTTFix8EKx6EmmURdmq3FhOffnyYAboN0y rhlxbItot1IQqPTv8Povw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvkedrvdekjedguddvvdcutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefhvfevufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtqhertddttdejnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhho mhgrshcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqne cuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepgedttdeljeejgeffkeekkedtjeevtdehvedtkeeivdeuuedv ieduvdelveejueejnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilh hfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i47234305:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 03:50:25 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Honnappa Nagarahalli Cc: "Etelson, Gregory" , Juraj =?utf-8?B?TGlua2XFoQ==?= , Paul Szczepanek , Yoan Picchi , Jeremy Spewock , Patrick Robb , Luca Vizzarro , "ci@dpdk.org" , "dev@dpdk.org" , nd Subject: Re: DTS testpmd and SCAPY integration Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 09:50:23 +0100 Message-ID: <6608561.G0QQBjFxQf@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <2a287ee7-cda4-f2ab-a4e6-a47021f8573f@nvidia.com> <2127794.bB369e8A3T@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-BeenThere: ci@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK CI discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ci-bounces@dpdk.org 23/01/2024 04:42, Honnappa Nagarahalli: > > 08/01/2024 13:10, Luca Vizzarro: > > > Your proposal sounds rather interesting. Certainly enabling DTS to > > > accept YAML-written tests sounds more developer-friendly and should > > > enable quicker test-writing. As this is an extra feature though =E2= =80=93 and > > > a nice-to-have, it should definitely be discussed in the DTS meetings > > > as Honnappa suggested already. > >=20 > > I would not classify this idea as "nice-to-have". > > I would split this proposal in 2 parts: > > 1/ YAML is an implementation alternative. > > 2/ Being able to write a test with a small number of lines, > > reusing some commands from existing tools, > > should be our "must-have" common goal. > >=20 > > Others have mentioned that YAML may not be suitable in complex cases, a= nd > > that it would be an additional language for test writing. > > I personnaly think we should focus on a single path which is easy to re= ad and > > maintain. >=20 > I think we are digressing from the plan we had put forward if we have to = go down this path. > We should understand what it means by going down the YAML format. > Also, what would happen if there is another innovation in 3 months? There is a misunderstanding here. I suggest to take this proposal as an example of the simplicity to reach. But I agree with you it is more reasonnable to continue with the Python pat= h. > We already have scatter-gather test suite ported to DPDK repo and has und= ergone review in the community. >=20 > In the last meeting we went through a simple test case. Is it possible to= write the scatter-gather test case in YAML and see how they compare? After the latest CI meeting we thought about writing a simple text case in Python with some virtual functions which would abstract all the boilerpl= ate code, so it would have the same level of simplicity as this YAML proposal. > > For the configuration side, YAML is already used in DTS. > > For the test suite logic, do you think we can achieve the same simplici= ty with > > some Python code? > >=20 > > We discussed how to progress with this proposal during the CI meeting l= ast > > week. > > We need to check how it could look and what we can improve to reach this > > goal. > > Patrick proposes a meeting this Wednesday at 2pm UTC.