Hi Alper,
On Sun, 30 Aug 2020 at 16:38, Alper Nebi Yasak alpernebiyasak@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/08/2020 23:37, Simon Glass wrote:
On Sun, 30 Aug 2020 at 12:17, Alper Nebi Yasak alpernebiyasak@gmail.com wrote:
Entry_section.ObtainContents() never returns False, so I'm removing the checks for that, which contained the statements the test didn't cover.
If you put something in the FIT that depends on something else, it will return False on the first pass. So you can't remove that code.
Section etype already does three passes over its subentries and either returns True or raises an exception. Maybe it should return False instead, but that breaks the 057_unknown_contents.dts test.
We do want to detect when an entry does not get around to producing its contents, so this is correct.
Instead, use the _testing etype with a 'return-contents-later' property. to ensure the path is testing. See 162_fit_external.dts for how this works.
Since section does multiple passes, this appears to only add some more data to wherever it's inserted, with no change in coverage.
I can get the exception with 'return-unknown-contents'. If I replace the raise with 'return False', it fails in section etype's GetData(). If I fix that (section_data += data or b''), the FIT entry returns b'' as its entire data due to those checks and only then I can cover them with a new test. More trouble than it's worth?
OK I see. But if we later change entry_Section to be more flexible we will get into trouble. Still, that is what test coverage is for, so I think it is OK to not check the return value and add a comment as to why.
Regards, SImon