[PATCH 00/33] Test framework improvements

[Chris Johns]

On 22/7/20 7:16 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 22/07/2020 07:04, Chris Johns wrote:
>> On 22/7/20 1:04 am, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>> b) As previously discussed there are a few more states a test result can be
>> other than pass and fail and I thikn the wording here may need tightening. I am
>> not sure what is needed. Also how do resource leaks effect the result?
> 
> Currently, the test framework supports only passed and failed at the level of a
> test check. I am not sure if adding more states at this level is really helpful.

The terms pass and failed are overloaded and relative to a specific context and
I am wondering if this needs to be clearer.

>> c) Does the framework provide a standard way to export a dynamic test
>> environment so the test and the results can be reviewed as a complete set of
>> data?
> Sorrry, I don't understand this question.

If dynamic configuration effects the test and the test fails would reproducing
the result be more difficult if you do not know what the dynamic state was? For
example using this for a network test and the dynamic configuration can select
between DHCP and a static set up.

>> a) Change "You can add test case destructors with T_add_destructor(). They
>> are.." to "A test case destructor can be added with T_add_destructor(). The
>> destructors are..".
> I kept the "You can" style for now.

OK.

>> a) Can "You can .." be removed so it is not person specific? For example "You
>> can convert time into ticks with the" ciuld be "The time can be converted into
>> ticks with the"? This comment covers all the "You can"s. :)
> I will keep this you can style for now.

OK.

>> a) What is the picture drawn in?
> Libreoffice Draw.
>>
>> I will comment on the patches as well.
> Thanks for the review.

Sorry, another question, is libtest installed and available to other parts of
RTEMS like libbsd and also available to users?

Chris