On 03/05/2018 03:31 PM, Wouter van der Beek (wovander) wrote:
Sounds like an issue..
to be reported ;)
The python works great for creating the introspection files as part of the
DeviceBuilder tool chain and works fine with the CTT.
I have tried to use exactly the same sequence for the security files, but I
never got that to work... not sure what is different and why it should be
different.
Python tool will be welcome for sure, but I will not recommend to use it.
Relying on 2 implementations to produce .dat files is subject to
inconstancies
we already faced this in the past (and still today), when all .dat files
were not updated after changes.
Also something which is bugging me is that some dats files are modified
once tests are run, and spotted as different,
maybe we should avoid to touch .dat files in tree after they generation.
Regards
--
mailto:philippe.co...@osg.samsung.com gpg:0x467094BC
https://blogs.s-osg.org/author/pcoval/
_______________________________________________
iotivity-dev mailing list
iotivity-dev@lists.iotivity.org
https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
