Skip to content
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

test-4.1.1 SerialLoopback.txt #41

Closed
GoogleCodeExporter opened this issue Feb 9, 2016 · 3 comments
Closed

test-4.1.1 SerialLoopback.txt #41

GoogleCodeExporter opened this issue Feb 9, 2016 · 3 comments

Comments

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link

What steps will reproduce the problem?

test-4.1.1 SerialLoopback.txt
step  4. Must have run test-3.1.1,  So that a file FSWRITE.F is in the EEPROM 
File System

states prerequisite test is  test 1.3.2 (and 1.3.2 incorrectly states 
prerequisite  test-3.1.1, should be 1.3.1)

BUT 4.1.1 is on PROTOBOARD, 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 were on SPINERET

-suggestion-

reword step 4 to include

step  4. Must have run test-3.1.1 ON PROTOBOARD,  So that a file FSWRITE.F is 
in the 

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?


Please use labels and text to provide additional information.


Original issue reported on code.google.com by prof.bra...@gmail.com on 5 Jul 2011 at 1:04

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link
Author

Also, 4.1.1 should only have 1 prerequisite test,  as opposed to a test that 
requires another (that requires another ...)

Since the EERPOM file system tests are already executed, 
and  the intended start condition is 
 - fswrite in EEPROM
 - fsWR in EEPROM
 - fsRD in dictionary (via saveforth)
and this is targeted at protoboard not spineret, 

suggestion is that the specific set up be included in this test rather than a 
chain of prerequisites that user must alter. 

Original comment by prof.bra...@gmail.com on 5 Jul 2011 at 1:12

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link
Author

Original comment by prof.bra...@gmail.com on 5 Jul 2011 at 1:12

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link
Author

tests are change, not applicaable for 5.0

Original comment by prof.bra...@gmail.com on 21 Dec 2011 at 4:29

  • Changed state: Invalid

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant