[PATCH v11 06/29] test: boot: fix bootflow_cmd_label for when DSA_SANDBOX is disabled

[Ilias Apalodimas]

On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 at 11:46, Jerome Forissier
<jerome.forissier at linaro.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/4/24 08:55, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> > Hi Jerome,
> >
> > On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 at 18:23, Jerome Forissier
> > <jerome.forissier at linaro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> When DSA_SANDBOX is not set, the sandbox tests fail as follows:
> >>
> >>  $ ./test/py/test.py --build-dir=$(pwd) -k bootdev_test_any
> >>  [...]
> >>  Scanning for bootflows with label '9'
> >>  [...]
> >>  Cannot find '9' (err=-19)
> >>
> >> This is due to the device list containing two less entries than
> >> expected. Therefore, look for label '7' when DSA_SANDBOX is disabled.
> >>
> >> The actual use case is NET_LWIP=y (to be introduced in later patches)
> >> which implies DSA_SANDBOX=n for the time being.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jerome Forissier <jerome.forissier at linaro.org>
> >> ---
> >>  test/boot/bootflow.c | 7 +++++--
> >>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/test/boot/bootflow.c b/test/boot/bootflow.c
> >> index 6ad63afe90a..c440b8eb778 100644
> >> --- a/test/boot/bootflow.c
> >> +++ b/test/boot/bootflow.c
> >> @@ -109,9 +109,12 @@ static int bootflow_cmd_label(struct unit_test_state *uts)
> >>          * 8   [   ]      OK  mmc       mmc2.bootdev
> >>          * 9   [ + ]      OK  mmc       mmc1.bootdev
> >>          * a   [   ]      OK  mmc       mmc0.bootdev
> >> +        *
> >> +        * However with CONFIG_DSA_SANDBOX=n we have two less (dsa-test at 0 and
> >> +        * dsa-test at 1).
> >>          */
> >> -       ut_assertok(run_command("bootflow scan -lH 9", 0));
> >> -       ut_assert_nextline("Scanning for bootflows with label '9'");
> >
> > Shouldn't this under and #ifdef, IS_ENABLED etc?
>
> In theory yes, but we can avoid the conditional by using index 7 which is always
> valid, i.e., in all configurations we have at least 7 devices (even 8 actually).

Ok, but I *think* Simon was trying to match the exact out put here,
not 'at least 7'.

I think we are better off being strict on this test

Thanks
/Ilias
>
> >
> >> +       ut_assertok(run_command("bootflow scan -lH 7", 0));
> >> +       ut_assert_nextline("Scanning for bootflows with label '7'");
> >>         ut_assert_skip_to_line("(1 bootflow, 1 valid)");
> >>
> >>         ut_assertok(run_command("bootflow scan -lH 0", 0));
> >> --
> >> 2.40.1
> >>