Hi Stephen, On 1 December 2015 at 16:24, Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org> wrote: > On 12/01/2015 09:40 AM, Simon Glass wrote: > ... >> >> At present we don't have a sensible test framework for anything other >> than sandbox, so to me the main benefit is that with your setup, we >> do. >> >> The benefit of the existing sandbox tests is that they are very fast. >> We could bisect for a test failure in a few minutes. I'd like to make >> sure that we can still write C tests (that are called from your >> framework with results integrated into it) and that the Python tests >> are also fast. >> >> How do we move this forward? Are you planing to resend the patch with >> the faster approach? > > > I'm tempted to squash down all/most the fixes/enhancements I've made since > posting the original into a single commit rather than sending follow-on > enhancements, since none of it is applied yet. I can keep the various test > implementations etc. in separate commits as a series. Does that seem > reasonable?
It does to me. I think ideally we should have the infrastructure in one patch (i.e. with just a noddy/sample test). Then you can add tests in another patch or patches. > > I need to do some more testing/clean-up of the version that doesn't use > pexpect. For example, I have only tested sandbox and not real HW, and also > haven't tested (and perhaps implemented some of) the support for matching > unexpected error messages in the console log. Still, that all shouldn't take > too long. OK sounds good. Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
