-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 22
New issue
Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? # to your account
04-single-hop-6lowpan-icmp: initial import of automated tests #161
Conversation
e224e41
to
964db19
Compare
Rebased to current master. |
b8fff84
to
b67f945
Compare
And rebased to current master |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good, I think in the specs the wait time for the pktbuf to be empty should match the wait time we use in the scripts. Otherwise this gives a good first base to have, I'll run the all the tests once to verify that everything is OK, before ACKing. Tests 6-8
I'll run locally.
One question, why not simply |
assert pktbuf(pinger).is_empty() | ||
|
||
|
||
@pytest.mark.xfail(reason="Experimental task") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Realizing this while running the tests, but I'm not sure these should be marked as xfail
, if they are then we get no information about the failure, I think we should not mark them as such.
RIOT_TERMINAL=socat RIOTBASE=/home/francisco/workspace/RIOT TRIBE_CI=1 pytest 04-single-hop-6lowpan-icmp/test_spec04.py -k="test_task05 or test_task06 or test_task07 or test_task08" --local
========================================================== test session starts ==========================================================
platform linux -- Python 3.6.9, pytest-5.4.3, py-1.9.0, pluggy-0.13.1 -- /home/francisco/.virtualenvs/release/bin/python3
cachedir: .pytest_cache
rootdir: /home/francisco/workspace/Release-Specs, inifile: setup.cfg
collected 10 items / 6 deselected / 4 selected
04-single-hop-6lowpan-icmp/test_spec04.py::test_task05[nodes0] XFAIL [ 25%]
04-single-hop-6lowpan-icmp/test_spec04.py::test_task06[nodes0] XFAIL [ 50%]
04-single-hop-6lowpan-icmp/test_spec04.py::test_task07[nodes0] XPASS [ 75%]
04-single-hop-6lowpan-icmp/test_spec04.py::test_task08[nodes0] XFAIL [100%]
------------------------------ generated xml file: /home/francisco/workspace/Release-Specs/test-report.xml ------------------------------
======================================== 6 deselected, 3 xfailed, 1 xpassed in 292.06s (0:04:52) ========================================
For now what I would rather do is mark 05-08
as local only since arduino-zero
is currently broken in iotlab, that way they will be skipped anyway
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
(Don't be alarmed by failing tests, I don't actually have all the boards on the test, so its normal for them to fail (and xbee initialization seem to still be flimsy).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Will do. There are however also other tests in other specs that are marked as xfail
due to their experimental nature. Shall I remove them there as well?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we should, can you point me to the others that were marked?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Appearently the only one remaining is in #160:
03-single-hop-ipv6-icmp/test_spec03.py:@pytest.mark.xfail(reason="See https://github.com/RIOT-OS/RIOT/issues/12565")
|
I think it is not breaking the specs if we wait longer. The times in the specs are there so people don't try it immediately after. By waiting a bit longer in the automated tests we ensure we do not hit the cleaning of the packet buffer just at that moment accidentally. |
(sure, could have been just |
0ce8bdf
to
c673ec8
Compare
Applied comments and |
Test results:
|
Interesting oO |
Please squash @miri64! |
Co-Authored-By: Alexandre Abadie <alexandre.abadie@inria.fr> Co-Authored-By: Martine S. Lenders <m.lenders@fu-berlin.de>
c673ec8
to
666c551
Compare
Squashed |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ACK!
Thanks for the review! |
Taken out of the original #155, this provides automated tests (where possible with the current framework) for spec 4 to the new, pytest-based framework.
Requires #155