[U-Boot] [PATCH] test/py: hush_if_test: Add tests to cover octal/hex values
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(+)
diff --git a/test/py/tests/test_hush_if_test.py b/test/py/tests/test_hush_if_test.py index bba8d41d9648..252e8d1521ed 100644 --- a/test/py/tests/test_hush_if_test.py +++ b/test/py/tests/test_hush_if_test.py @@ -52,6 +52,33 @@ subtests = ( ('test 123 -ge 123', True), ('test 123 -ge 456', False),
+ # Octal tests + + ('test 010 -eq 010', True), + ('test 010 -eq 011', False), + + ('test 010 -ne 011', True), + ('test 010 -ne 010', False), + + # Hexadecimal tests + + ('test 0x2000000 -gt 0x2000001', False), + ('test 0x2000000 -gt 0x2000000', False), + ('test 0x2000000 -gt 0x1ffffff', True), + + # Mixed tests + + ('test 010 -eq 10', False), + ('test 010 -ne 10', True), + ('test 0xa -eq 10', True), + ('test 0xa -eq 012', True), + + ('test 2000000 -gt 0x1ffffff', False), + ('test 0x2000000 -gt 1ffffff', True), + ('test 0x2000000 -lt 1ffffff', False), + ('test 0x2000000 -eq 2000000', False), + ('test 0x2000000 -ne 2000000', True), + ('test -z ""', True), ('test -z "aaa"', False),
On 10/10/19 5:44 AM, Michal Simek wrote:
Extend test suite to cover also automatic octal/hex converstions which haven't been implemented in past.
Acked-by: Stephen Warren swarren@nvidia.com
Stephen Warren swarren@wwwdotorg.org schrieb am Do., 10. Okt. 2019, 17:56:
On 10/10/19 5:44 AM, Michal Simek wrote:
Extend test suite to cover also automatic octal/hex converstions which haven't been implemented in past.
Acked-by: Stephen Warren swarren@nvidia.com
Reviewed-by: Simon Goldschmidt simon.k.r.goldschmidt@gmail.com
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?
Regards, Simon
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 see that CONFIG_UNIT_TEST is enabled only for sandbox. Do it make sense to enable it also for others to have better coverage?
Thanks, Michal
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 see that CONFIG_UNIT_TEST is enabled only for sandbox. Do it make sense to enable it also for others to have better coverage?
Hopefully the sandbox tests cover it. We are not necessarily trying to find compiler bugs, just make sure that code has test coverage.
Regards, Simon
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.
Thanks, Michal
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.
Regards, Simon
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 sandbox is good for unit tests and providing host-based smoke tests, but nothing beats actually being able to test real platforms.
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()
sandbox is good for unit tests and providing host-based smoke tests, but nothing beats actually being able to test real platforms.
Agreed, but I think that is a separate issue.
Regards, Simon
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:-)
On 22. 10. 19 17:54, Stephen Warren wrote:
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:-)
Ok. Would be good to get any outcome of this discussion regarding this one patch. Right now this is what I have and I have tested it. The patch which adds this functionality is already in the tree.
I expect that the same logic can be applied to all tests in this file that's why I think that would be the best to add TODO to this file to let everybody know what should happen with these tests and how it should be converted.
Thanks, Michal
Hi Michal,
On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 00:51, Michal Simek michal.simek@xilinx.com wrote:
On 22. 10. 19 17:54, Stephen Warren wrote:
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:-)
Ok. Would be good to get any outcome of this discussion regarding this one patch. Right now this is what I have and I have tested it. The patch which adds this functionality is already in the tree.
I expect that the same logic can be applied to all tests in this file that's why I think that would be the best to add TODO to this file to let everybody know what should happen with these tests and how it should be converted.
Yes please add a TODO, but I don't want to add more tests here for someone to convert!
I just timed it - 2.5 seconds to run the hush tests, 22 seconds to run the whole test suite - so these tests take 10% of the time! As you mention they run instantly when done in C.
I run these tests a lot - the total time for 'make qcheck' is about 75s for me and I run it a lot, so am actively looking to reduce this down.
We may need to rethink the pytest stuff a bit, perhaps building U-Boot as a Python library? But in any case, please add a C test. It is really easy to do, e.g. like cmd_ut.c
Regards, Simon
participants (4)
-
Michal Simek -
Simon Glass -
Simon Goldschmidt -
Stephen Warren