Re: Ways to deal with broken machine types
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 12:21:37PM +0100, David Edmondson wrote:
> Unfortunately I do not think this is practical :(.
>
> All examples of breakage I am aware of, we did not
> realise some part of interface was part of guest ABI
> and unsafe to change. We simply would not know to write a
> test for it.
While agreeing that it would not be possible to cover all aspects of the
ABI immediately, does that mean that some level of coverage would not be
useful?
Our testing already warns about ACPI table changes (which is what
happened here). We just verified them manually and thought they are
fine.
--
MST