RTEMS | testsuites/sptests: Edit spclock_err02 for post-2100 validation (!1103)

[Gedare Bloom (@gedare)]

Merge request https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/rtos/rtems/-/merge_requests/1103 was reviewed by Gedare Bloom

--
  
Gedare Bloom started a new discussion on testsuites/sptests/spclock_err02/init.c: https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/rtos/rtems/-/merge_requests/1103#note_149078

 >  
 > -  build_time( &time, 12, 31, 2000, 23, 59, 59, 0 );
 > +  build_time( &time, 12, 31, 1991, 23, 59, 59, 0 );

why changing this one?

--
  
Gedare Bloom started a new discussion on testsuites/sptests/spclock_err02/init.c: https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/rtos/rtems/-/merge_requests/1103#note_149079

 >  
 > -  build_time( &time, 12, 31, 4095, 23, 59, 59, 0 );
 > +  build_time( &time, 12, 31, 2000, 23, 59, 59, 0 );

ditto

--
  
Gedare Bloom started a new discussion on testsuites/sptests/spclock_err02/init.c: https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/rtos/rtems/-/merge_requests/1103#note_149080

 > -  build_time( &time, 1, 1, 4096, 0, 0, 0, 0 );
 > +  /* Additional future year checks */
 > +

delete

--
  
Gedare Bloom started a new discussion on testsuites/sptests/spclock_err02/init.c: https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/rtos/rtems/-/merge_requests/1103#note_149081

 > -  fatal_directive_status( status, RTEMS_INVALID_CLOCK, "rtems_clock_set" );
 > -  print_time( "TA1 - rtems_clock_set - ", &time, " - RTEMS_INVALID_CLOCK\n" );
 > +  directive_failed(status, "rtems_clock_set"); // expect SUCCESS

keep these similar to the other blocks.

--
  
Gedare Bloom started a new discussion on testsuites/sptests/spclock_err02/init.c: https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/rtos/rtems/-/merge_requests/1103#note_149082

 >  
 > -  build_time( &time, 12, 31, 1991, 23, 59, 59, 0 );
 > +  build_time( &time, 3, 1, 2200, 0, 0, 0, 0 );

I don't think this one is needed

--
  
Gedare Bloom started a new discussion on testsuites/sptests/spclock_err02/init.c: https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/rtos/rtems/-/merge_requests/1103#note_149083

 > +  print_time( "TA1 - rtems_clock_get_tod - ", &time, " - RTEMS_SUCCESSFUL\n" );
 > +
 > +  build_time( &time, 3, 1, 3000, 0, 0, 0, 0 );

I don't think this is adding anything special? I guess if we wanted something, we should test for 2800 as that's the next weird year? And probably year 4000 too.

--
  
Gedare Bloom started a new discussion on testsuites/sptests/spclock_err02/init.c: https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/rtos/rtems/-/merge_requests/1103#note_149084

 > +  status = rtems_clock_get_tod( &time );
 > +  directive_failed( status, "rtems_clock_get_tod" );
 > +  print_time( "TA1 - rtems_clock_get_tod - ", &time, " - RTEMS_SUCCESSFUL\n" );

These tests would be more useful if they assert the value of the TOD after waking up, @joel ?


-- 
View it on GitLab: https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/rtos/rtems/-/merge_requests/1103
You're receiving this email because of your account on gitlab.rtems.org.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/bugs/attachments/20260427/e1c83f84/attachment-0001.htm>