On 4/30/19 5:29 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 4/16/19 4:04 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
From: Stephen Warren swarren@nvidia.com
Fix test_mmc_dev(), test_mmc_rescan(), test_mmc_info() not to use the same configuration data that test_mmc_rd() does. Doing so causes the following issues:
- The new code uncondtionally expects certain keys to exist in the
configuration data. These keys do not exist in existing configuration data since they were not previously required, and there was no notification re: a requirement to add these new keys. This causes test failures due to thrown exceptions when accessing the non-existent keys.
- The new tests logically operate on different objects. test_mmc_rd()
operates on ranges of sectors on an MMC device (which may be the entire set of sectors of a device, or a part of a device), whereas all the new tests operate solely on entire devices. These are separate things, and it's entirely likely that the user will wish to runs the two types of tests on different sets of data; see the example configuration data that this commit adds. Ideally, the new tests would have been added to a separate Python file, since they aren' closely related to the existing tests.
FIXME: Marek, can you please replace the "???" in this patch with some reasonable looking data? Thanks.
Tom, Marek, any chance of applying this? Right now, every mainline branch is failing 5 tests on every push, which wastes my time having to go through all the logs to manually check that the failures aren't anything new/unknown. Thanks.
I'm still overloaded, and didn't have time to look into this. But I'm really not fond of the duplication here -- now we have two big tables describing very much the same thing, which SD/MMC to test .