2008/10/22, Sebastien Lelong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi there, > > I've had few words about "jallib" wrapper and how tests can be handled. I saw them but just did not, at that time, have the brain power to process it...
>>1 * I could look at "test" dir and search for "test_*" files, and register > them for all PIC. The problem is not all PIC can handled all tests (eg, as > you said before, testing 2 PWM channels on a PIC 16F88). So ? One > requirement for me: if a test or a sample is registered in the yaml file for > a given PIC, then it's relevant for this PIC. That way, every piece of > information in the testing matrix is valid/relevant. > > > >2 * I could search for "board_*" files, and try to compile board + test. If > it compiles, I register test for the PIC defined in the board_ file. If not, > I skip the test. Will compilation always fail when it *has* to fail ? > > > >3 * finally, we could manually register tests for each PIC which can handle > them. Updates/generating a new matrix will require manual operations. > > I thought of option 3, but 2 would be nice. I guess compilation will fail in most of the cases it has to. And adding an option to define a test result as not_applicable could handle cases where compilations works but should not. The script should also take the test results entered in the old file and put it in the new file, when (after) it is generated. If this is not possible, we should not regenerate the yaml file. Joep --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
