[U-Boot] [PATCH v2] travis: Add efi_loader grub2 test

[Stephen Warren]

On 11/21/2016 04:21 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>
> On 21/11/2016 23:21, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 11/18/2016 05:18 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> We have all the building blocks now to run arbitrary efi applications
>>> in travis. The most important one out there is grub2, so let's add
>>> a simple test to verify that grub2 still comes up.
>>
>>> diff --git a/.travis.yml b/.travis.yml
>>
>>> @@ -45,6 +48,9 @@ install:
>>>   - virtualenv /tmp/venv
>>>   - . /tmp/venv/bin/activate
>>>   - pip install pytest
>>> + - grub-mkimage -o ~/grub_x86.efi -O i386-efi normal  echo lsefimmap
>>> lsefi lsefisystab efinet tftp minicmd
>>> + - mkdir ~/grub2-arm
>>> + - ( cd ~/grub2-arm; wget -O -
>>> http://download.opensuse.org/ports/armv7hl/distribution/leap/42.2/repo/oss/suse/armv7hl/grub2-arm-efi-2.02~beta2-87.1.armv7hl.rpm
>>>
>>> | rpm2cpio | cpio -di )
>>
>> Do we really want to do this for all the build-only jobs too? I might
>> have expected to do this inside the test scripts that actually use those
>> binaries.
>>
>>> diff --git a/test/py/tests/test_efi_loader.py
>>> b/test/py/tests/test_efi_loader.py
>>
>>> + at pytest.mark.buildconfigspec('cmd_bootefi')
>>
>>> +    u_boot_console.run_command('bootefi %x' % addr,
>>> wait_for_prompt=False)
>>> +
>>> +    # Verify that we have an SMBIOS table
>>> +    check_smbios =
>>> u_boot_console.config.env.get('env__efi_loader_check_smbios', False)
>>> +    if check_smbios:
>>> +        u_boot_console.wait_for('grub>')
>>> +        output = u_boot_console.run_command('lsefisystab',
>>> wait_for_prompt=False, wait_for_echo=False)
>>> +        u_boot_console.wait_for('SMBIOS')
>>> +
>>> +    # Then exit cleanly
>>> +    u_boot_console.wait_for('grub>')
>>> +    output = u_boot_console.run_command('exit',
>>> wait_for_prompt=False, wait_for_echo=False)
>>> +    u_boot_console.wait_for('r = 0')
>>> +
>>> +    # And give us our U-Boot prompt back
>>> +    u_boot_console.run_command('')
>>
>> I can't help wondering if adding push_prompt() function (for use in a
>> Python "with" statement) to u_boot_console wouldn't be better; that
>> would avoid all the wait_for_prompt=False and wait_for(prompt) logic
>> there.
>
> What would that function do? The same?

The internal implementation would likely look the same, but it would 
avoid needing to implement/replicate such low-level prompt-parsing 
details in each test that invokes "sub-commands" with different prompts.