Patch Set 2: (5 comments)
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/#/c/3731/2/src/osmo_gsm_tester/bts_osmotrx.py File src/osmo_gsm_tester/bts_osmotrx.py: Line 140: }) Ah, before I didn't notice that this is in conf_for_bsc(), not the conf for this object itself... https://gerrit.osmocom.org/#/c/3731/2/src/osmo_gsm_tester/bts_sysmo.py File src/osmo_gsm_tester/bts_sysmo.py: Line 117: self.band_arfcn = band_arfcn self.band_arfcn should have a default value up in __init__() or above that. Line 120: return self.band_arfcn.get('band') can self.band_arfcn be unset? Then this would raise a NoneType exception. Line 123: return int(self.band_arfcn.get('arfcn')) same https://gerrit.osmocom.org/#/c/3731/1/src/osmo_gsm_tester/suite.py File src/osmo_gsm_tester/suite.py: Line 484: bts_inst.set_arfcn_resource(arfcn) > I thought a lot about all pros and cons of doing it one or the other way, a I am fairly strongly against reserving more resources after the test started. The point is that I would like to keep the option of scheduling test suites in parallel. The paradigm there is that a test suite in advance says what it needs, and we can thus know which two suites can run in parallel without resource conflicts. If we reserve more after it started, we are closing the door on this possibility for good. I think this is a topic we should sit down and discuss in person, easier to wave hands while talking. I'll come and chat with you this week. -- To view, visit https://gerrit.osmocom.org/3731 To unsubscribe, visit https://gerrit.osmocom.org/settings Gerrit-MessageType: comment Gerrit-Change-Id: I6fb5d95bed1fa50c3deaf62a7a6df3cb276bc3c9 Gerrit-PatchSet: 2 Gerrit-Project: osmo-gsm-tester Gerrit-Branch: master Gerrit-Owner: Pau Espin Pedrol <[email protected]> Gerrit-Reviewer: Jenkins Builder Gerrit-Reviewer: Neels Hofmeyr <[email protected]> Gerrit-Reviewer: Pau Espin Pedrol <[email protected]> Gerrit-Reviewer: neels <[email protected]> Gerrit-HasComments: Yes
