On 09/04/2020 15:04, Joel Sherrill wrote:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020, 7:43 AM Sebastian Huber
<sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
<mailto:sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de>> wrote:
On 09/04/2020 14:40, Joel Sherrill wrote:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020, 7:28 AM Utkarsh Rai <utkarsh.ra...@gmail.com
<mailto:utkarsh.ra...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi,
I am willing to add tests for clock_nanosleep with
CLOCK_MONOTONIC. What is the standard way of adding test for
an already present API but with different configuration? For
eg. should I add 'psxtmclocknanosleep04/ 05/ 06' in the
testsuite?
Yes. That is the pattern.
We should try to reduce the count of test programs since on boards
with a long reboot time, more tests programs means much more test
time (compared to the new test cases alone).
And there is the competing factor that you end up with test
executables that are overly complex, do not have clean environments
for many of the test cases, and are too large to fit on many target
boards.
The RTEMS Test framework has checks to ensure that the environment is
sane before a new test case is executed. It decouples the test cases
from the runner. This could be used to group test cases to test suites
depending on the target memory size.
I know you have seen how long the list is of tests that you can't run
on many boards. That's a bad quality attribute
I don't think that tests for clock_nanosleep() will result in big
executables. The executable size is mostly defined by the feature to be
tested.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
