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

[Jerome Forissier]

On 10/4/24 11:37, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> 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

No because there are 10 entries according to the comment ("a" hex being
mmc0.bootdev). Simon, what do you suggest?

Thanks,
-- 
Jerome

> 
> 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
>>>>