-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 21
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Release 2017.10 - RC1 #47
Comments
Task 1 successful |
Task 5 semi successful, ping6 on
see gist for details |
Since they are experimental I wouldn't say it is blocking for this release (however @haukepetersen has the last word on this), but could you maybe debug, what the problem is? For iotlab-m3 and samr21-xpro it works like a charm. |
Task 06 semi successful, ping6 on
results are in gist as above. @miri64 I think the remote gets stuck when sending ping, because answering pings works. |
[edit] |
@kYc0o can you write somewhere down what you did, so other people than you can test this in the future as well? ;-) |
well if ping is not working on Zolertia remote (maybe no send at all) this would IMO be blocking. Will investigate ... |
Task 1.1 failing / not completable. |
Could you at least provide an issue (if not already existent) to the mainline repository ;-)? |
|
|
@miri64 after I saw you message, I tested it quickly. It can't fin |
Analysed that: it is set in the environment when starting to build (reasons unclear) and the buildtests just take that environment. |
The
|
I will check if that is a regression of the various |
Have been running all the tests that are automatically runnable for 02-Tests. So far, the following findings need to be investigated (as they failed right away):
See https://gist.github.com/haukepetersen/39f77ce8db55959ff270e6fb2223b9f4 for more detailed results. |
Wouldn't cherry-picking those commits on top of RC1 make more sense? Otherwise changes from master might get into your tests. |
Actually, that is what I did. Did just use the wrong wording, sorry. |
Also, the run on the They look pretty similar to the other two boards... |
added a list with open issues in the original issue description above. Feel free to take on items (by putting your name to them) |
Current status of Task 1.1 (still running): |
@haukepetersen for |
There are some tests that shouldn't be even build is it? Especially those about the drivers we know are not attached to the device natively. This raises another question: how do we test device drivers which are not attached? Because as I see in the results they're of course failing. Then I also see some test (like |
I did not. All I did is to go into the |
Nope, there is no reason why they should not run. All we expect in that case is that the test will stop in a defined state, e.g. quitting while telling us
No, they are not neccessarily failing. Failing IMHO means that they do something unexpected (or do nothing...). If a sensor is not present, the test should still run and end up in a defined state, which can be checked.
These tests might well be successful from a software point of view: as some devices simply output stuff e.g. with their GPIO pins, they have no means of checking what actually happens on that pin. So from their view, the test runs just fine (as the driver initialization and further functions do not return any errors). |
So what are we actually testing? The driver implementation? The interface with the board? The expected behaviour of the driver if everything is in place (e.g. device attached to the node)?
That might be true for some drivers which have no means to know if the device is actually there and if it's able to return error codes. But in reality we have much more drivers which can (and actually do) return errors, which are actually parsed either by the test of by the interface to which they're attached. So, TL;DR, At what point it make sense to perform all this bunch of tests? What do we intend to test? Are all the tests written having this in mind? |
I re-tested task 5 and 6 of 04-Single Hop 6LoWPAN ICMP with fix for cc2538 applied. The test went trough, but have 30 to 50 % packet loss in both directions, goal is 10 % - so suboptimal results. |
@miri64 I am trying |
Disabling tests for other boards in lwip RIOT-OS/RIOT#7766 |
@kYc0o I see your point. But for know, my take is to go in small steps: first, lets try to make all tests terminate in a deterministic manner, e.g. sensor test aborts saying the sensor is not present and the test script for this takes this as passing the test. Once we have all tests in order, we need to a) execute many of them also on setups where they are applicable, and also go through all tests and see if they actually test what they are supposed to test and fix them if needed... |
Many of the tests are broken because the Makefiles do
And Not all tests have this Where does this multiple |
Oops, I performed a test and marked it as successful but the main message got modified. Can we take it back or is lost forever? |
cbor/samr21-xpro: cbor_stream_decode is completely broken it makes CPU reboot for the default case, when re-ordering I get Also for the test, printf cannot handle |
Regarding PRIu64, you need a newlib version built with long long support for printf. I think the arm gcc embedded toolchain is supposed to have this, not sure though. |
Spec 8 successfully completed. |
To run tests on samr21, testrunner needs to wait that Some more tests are working with this. |
Task 1.1 finally finished. Noted down the tests that failed (apart from the pic32 issue) above. For most issues PR already exist and some are even merged already. Only issue remaining is the |
@miri64 Can you copy/paste here or somewhere what fails? |
|
Found no doc on that dependency, installing |
I was unable to confirm that. Were your TAP interfaces set-up properly (I think it is fair to assume a test server would do that once at start-up and not has to do it for every test)? [edit]You need two TAP interfaces connected by a bridge (i.e. what |
|
For samr21-xpro, I tested the 'failed' tests. I needed to add the testrunner commit to wait for make term to be started. Then more of them passed.
Broken but easy fixes
Work to do
Broken tests because of taking current timestampTests read current timestamp between Tests execution with
|
If it could be simply detected, it would be good to check it is configured before running test or else print an error. |
|
(also: it is. If you don't have a tap |
They are failing because the device is not connected. (How) can one check for this in code? |
See comment. |
This does not really answer my question... I know that the device needs to be their and from what I know of the future test system you can actually say that it is provided, but there need to be some safe-state if it is not so that "uninformed" testers running the test locally don't start complaining "hey this test isn't working so it must be broken" (which IMHO it is if there is no safe-state, but that is just my 2ct).
At the minimum: that the driver compiles for that particular and if you have you can also check if it works |
I did the tests on native in the old fashioned way. Almost all succeded. I made some comments in the issue I have created. |
Also: testing if the initialization is working properly in an error case is also a valid test ;-) |
Fixed in RIOT-OS/RIOT#7788 |
Any reason why my multihop results were reseted? |
damn these GitHub checkmarks. I started doing them, because they were not checked :/ I will skip them now. |
To prevent any further hickups while editing the issue above, please use from now on the following google document for tracking: |
Thanks everyone, seems to me like everything is covered. Moving on to RC2! |
This issue lists the status of all tests for the Release Candidate 1 of the 2017.10 release.
Specs tested:
conn_can
(fixed),gnrc_ipv6_nib_6ln
(fixed),mcuboot
(propably missing dependency, don't know which),pkg_fatfs
(fixed))Task 08Task 10The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: