[PATCH 2/3] testsuite: User input define added

[Chris Johns]

On 2020-04-01 16:40, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 01/04/2020 00:06, Chris Johns wrote:
> 
>> On 2020-03-31 21:02, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>> On 31/03/2020 11:56, Chris Johns wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2020-03-31 19:57, Moyano, Gabriel wrote:
>>>>> diff --git a/testsuite/arphole/test_main.c 
>>>>> b/testsuite/arphole/test_main.c
>>>>> index 19d67b89..45a28cc0 100644
>>>>> --- a/testsuite/arphole/test_main.c
>>>>> +++ b/testsuite/arphole/test_main.c
>>>>> @@ -54,6 +54,7 @@
>>>>>   #include <rtems/bsd/util.h>
>>>>>     #define TEST_NAME "LIBBSD ARP HOLE"
>>>>> +#define TEST_STATE_USER_INPUT 1
>>>>
>>>> In rtems.git these test states are defined on the compiler command 
>>>> line. The user input state is OK to define in the code but it gets 
>>>> more difficult with the others to manage them in the code and so I 
>>>> am wondering how we manage the other states in libbsd? And if we 
>>>> manage those in the build system then why manage this one? 
>>>
>>> Why should this define move to the build system of libbsd. It is a 
>>> property of the test if it is interactive or not.
>>
>> I was only highlighting the inconsistencies and problems that result. 
>> Placing the define in the source of a test was consider in rtems.git 
>> however having all data related to controlling tests in a single place 
>> was considered the better path. I asset this is still valid.
> Yes, you are right, however, this patch is already an improvement which 
> is worth to commit. Making this even better is a different topic and a 
> secondary step from my point of view. Before the new build system for 
> RTEMS is not integrated I am not in favour of adding more complexity to 
> the libbsd build system.

Yes this makes sense. I want to make sure this is remember when the time 
comes to look at a better solution.

Chris