On 10/21/19 5:46 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 17:04, Stephen Warren swarren@wwwdotorg.org wrote:
On 10/21/19 4:53 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Michal,
On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 at 00:09, Michal Simek michal.simek@xilinx.com wrote:
Hi Simon,
On 11. 10. 19 17:53, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Michal,
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 at 01:50, Michal Simek michal.simek@xilinx.com wrote:
On 10. 10. 19 19:06, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Michal, > > On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 05:44, Michal Simek michal.simek@xilinx.com wrote: >> >> Extend test suite to cover also automatic octal/hex converstions which >> haven't been implemented in past. >> >> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek michal.simek@xilinx.com >> --- >> >> Depends on https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2019-September/383309.html >> >> There are of course other tests which we can run but not sure if make sense >> to have there all combinations. The most interesting are mixed tests which >> are failing before patch above is applied. >> Definitely please let me know if you want to add any other test. >> --- >> test/py/tests/test_hush_if_test.py | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+) >> > > I worry that these tests might be very slow since it requires a lot of > interaction with U-Boot over a pipe. Is it possible to put them in C > code instead, e.g. cmd_ut?
I have of course running it on my HW and it is quite fast. It is just 16 more simple tests. And if this breaks gitlab/travis CI loops then we have bigger problem.
I mean running these tests on sandbox. The interactions with the sandbox command line are quite slow I think.
I am not sharing this concern.
Before: [u-boot]$ time ./test/py/test.py --bd sandbox -s -k hush >/dev/null
real 0m2,403s user 0m1,263s sys 0m0,299s
After [u-boot]$ time ./test/py/test.py --bd sandbox -s -k hush >/dev/null
real 0m2,864s user 0m1,563s sys 0m0,305s
And if 0.4s on testing will cause issues somewhere else we have different kind of problem.
+Stephen Warren
I originally mentioned this concern to Stephen we the test setup was created. At present even 'make qcheck' takes over a minute. Adding half a second to this every time we add a new test is not going to lead to a good place.
Stephen made some improvements to speed things up, and suggested that the problem would not bear out. The alternative was presumably to build U-Boot into a Python module to avoid the comms overhead. But we didn't go that path.
So I think we should only use Python when the tests cannot be written in C.
I don't really see any concern with the addition of a couple extra seconds of test. Clearly I'd rather see the test written in Python and using external interfaces (i.e. the shell) where they test features accessible through those interfaces, since that allows them to be validated on all platforms, rather than only in sandbox. I feel that
But cmd_ut.c works fine on non-sandbox platforms. I'm asking that we do the same approach here.
We can use run_command() and run_command_list()
In that case, I'd agree it's fine to use that approach since presumably those functions run through the standard shell parsing code. But I still wouldn't want to prevent anyone from invoking stuff from test/py myself, even if you might:-)