Test for clock_nanosleep with CLOCK_MONOTONIC (# 3890)

[Joel Sherrill]

On Thu, Apr 9, 2020, 7:43 AM Sebastian Huber <
sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de> wrote:

> On 09/04/2020 14:40, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020, 7:28 AM Utkarsh Rai <utkarsh.rai60 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> I am willing to add tests for clock_nanosleep with CLOCK_MONOTONIC. What
>> is the standard way of adding test for an already present  API but with
>> different configuration? For eg. should I add  'psxtmclocknanosleep04/ 05/
>> 06' in the testsuite?
>>
>
> Yes. That is the pattern.
>
> We should try to reduce the count of test programs since on boards with a
> long reboot time, more tests programs means much more test time (compared
> to the new test cases alone).
>

And there is the competing factor that you end up with test executables
that are overly complex, do not have clean environments for many of the
test cases, and are too large to fit on many target boards.

I know you have seen how long the list is of tests that you can't run on
many boards.  That's a bad quality attribute

--jo

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20200409/e5639878/attachment.html>