Also, I think I am getting the original TCK hardware back, so hopefully I can run the TCK test cases once I get it. But still, it should be easier to run the TCK without all the specific requirements.
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Roger Lindsjö <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dan Streetman wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Roger Lindsjö <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Dan Streetman wrote: >>> I started to run the tests, but ran into some problems. First I had to >>> do changes since the tests checks against specific version numbers. This >>> is probably wrong, why would the tests check for versions such as 1.0.1? >>> However, that was an easy fix. Other than that the tests required no >>> other USB devices connected, and that's where I ran into some problems >>> as my mouse and keybord are usb devices. >>> >>> Would it be kosher to rewrite the tests to not be so strict? >>> >> >> I think so. Since this mailing list is basically the committee to >> decide if we can make changes, I think as long as we all agree, it >> should be fine to change the TCK. >> >> So you're talking about removing or modifying the tests to check for >> specific version numbers right? I am totally fine with that. >> > The I'll start doing some of those changes. I'll verify what I do with > the mailinglist to catch any objections. >>> I was also missing an external USB hub required by some of the tests. >>> >> >> Does it need to be a specific usb hub or just any hub? >> > I'll look again, I don't think it was a specific hub, but since I dind't > have one at that point and a lot of other things got in the way I didn't > persue any further. >>> From the test specification it also seemed that a windows host was >>> required which I don't have readily available. >>> >> >> Really? That is bad. Is that just to program the Cypress board? A >> windows host shouldn't be required to run the test...we'll need to fix >> that. >> > Just for programmig the cypress. I guess that program could be rewritten > in java if needed using javax.usb ;-) I'll have an other go at it. >>> Dan, would it be valid to loosen the tests a bit in such a way as >>> allowing for different patch version in the implementation and other >>> endpoints on the bus? >>> >> >> Yes, I think so. In fact, we could probably use a properties file to >> allow setting the specific things to be checked, like what endpoint >> number, depending on what hardware the tester is using. Might be a >> bit of work to add that in to the TCK though. >> > I'll start doing what I can (mainly what time permits), but as long as I > do something it will probably be easier for the next person. > > //Roger Lindsjö > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > _______________________________________________ > javax-usb-jcp-tck mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/javax-usb-jcp-tck > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ javax-usb-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/javax-usb-devel
