Hi Stephen, On 19 November 2015 at 12:09, Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org> wrote: > > On 11/19/2015 10:00 AM, Stephen Warren wrote: >> >> On 11/19/2015 07:45 AM, Simon Glass wrote: >>> >>> Hi Stephen, >>> >>> On 14 November 2015 at 23:53, Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> This tool aims to test U-Boot by executing U-Boot shell commands >>>> using the >>>> console interface. A single top-level script exists to execute or attach >>>> to the U-Boot console, run the entire script of tests against it, and >>>> summarize the results. Advantages of this approach are: >>>> >>>> - Testing is performed in the same way a user or script would interact >>>> with U-Boot; there can be no disconnect. >>>> - There is no need to write or embed test-related code into U-Boot >>>> itself. >>>> It is asserted that writing test-related code in Python is simpler >>>> and >>>> more flexible that writing it all in C. >>>> - It is reasonably simple to interact with U-Boot in this way. >>>> >>>> A few simple tests are provided as examples. Soon, we should convert as >>>> many as possible of the other tests in test/* and test/cmd_ut.c too. >>> >>> >>> It's great to see this and thank you for putting in the effort! >>> >>> It looks like a good way of doing functional tests. I still see a role >>> for unit tests and things like test/dm. But if we can arrange to call >>> all U-Boot tests (unit and functional) from one 'test.py' command that >>> would be a win. >>> >>> I'll look more when I can get it to work - see below. > > ... >> >> made it print a message about checking the docs for missing >> requirements. I can probably patch the top-level test.py to do the same. > > > I've pushed such a patch to: > > git://github.com/swarren/u-boot.git tegra_dev > (the separate pytests branch has now been deleted) > > There are also a variety of other patches there related to this testing > infra-structure. I guess I'll hold off sending them to the list until there's > been some general feedback on the patches I've already posted, but feel free > to pull the branch down and play with it. Note that it's likely to get > rebased as I work.
OK I got it working thank you. It is horribly slow though - do you know what is holding it up? For me to takes 12 seconds to run the (very basic) tests. Also please see dm_test_usb_tree() which uses a console buffer to check command output. I wonder if we should use something like that for simple unit tests, and use python for the more complicated functional tests? Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
