[U-Boot] [PATCH] Implement pytest-based test infrastructure

[Simon Glass]

Hi Stephen,

On 1 December 2015 at 16:24, Stephen Warren <swarren at wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
> On 12/01/2015 09:40 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
> ...
>>
>> At present we don't have a sensible test framework for anything other
>> than sandbox, so to me the main benefit is that with your setup, we
>> do.
>>
>> The benefit of the existing sandbox tests is that they are very fast.
>> We could bisect for a test failure in a few minutes. I'd like to make
>> sure that we can still write C tests (that are called from your
>> framework with results integrated into it) and that the Python tests
>> are also fast.
>>
>> How do we move this forward? Are you planing to resend the patch with
>> the faster approach?
>
>
> I'm tempted to squash down all/most the fixes/enhancements I've made since
> posting the original into a single commit rather than sending follow-on
> enhancements, since none of it is applied yet. I can keep the various test
> implementations etc. in separate commits as a series. Does that seem
> reasonable?

It does to me. I think ideally we should have the infrastructure in one
patch (i.e. with just a noddy/sample test). Then you can add tests in
another patch or patches.

>
> I need to do some more testing/clean-up of the version that doesn't use
> pexpect. For example, I have only tested sandbox and not real HW, and also
> haven't tested (and perhaps implemented some of) the support for matching
> unexpected error messages in the console log. Still, that all shouldn't
take
> too long.

OK sounds good.

Regards,
Simon