| Message ID | 20201014034758.19427-1-warthog618@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | tests: improve wait_multiple coverage | expand |
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 5:48 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com> wrote: > > A couple of patches for the v2 branch that improve the coverage of the > wait_multiple test case. > > The first creates a mismatch between the chip offsets and bulk offsets > to highlight the problem with my initial implementation of > gpiod_line_event_wait_bulk() for uAPI v2. > > The second adds a check on the event.offset field added for uAPI v2. > > Kent Gibson (2): > tests: create mismatch between chip and bulk offsets in wait_multiple > tests: add check of event offset to wait_multiple > > tests/tests-event.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > -- > 2.28.0 > I suppose that, if we don't want to do the backward compatible port for now, these can be ignored? Bartosz
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 09:50:08AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 5:48 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > A couple of patches for the v2 branch that improve the coverage of the > > wait_multiple test case. > > > > The first creates a mismatch between the chip offsets and bulk offsets > > to highlight the problem with my initial implementation of > > gpiod_line_event_wait_bulk() for uAPI v2. > > > > The second adds a check on the event.offset field added for uAPI v2. > > > > Kent Gibson (2): > > tests: create mismatch between chip and bulk offsets in wait_multiple > > tests: add check of event offset to wait_multiple > > > > tests/tests-event.c | 3 ++- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > -- > > 2.28.0 > > > > I suppose that, if we don't want to do the backward compatible port > for now, these can be ignored? > It wouldn't hurt to have them either way - in my book it never hurts to increase test coverage. Cheers, Kent.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 10:37 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 09:50:08AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 5:48 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > A couple of patches for the v2 branch that improve the coverage of the > > > wait_multiple test case. > > > > > > The first creates a mismatch between the chip offsets and bulk offsets > > > to highlight the problem with my initial implementation of > > > gpiod_line_event_wait_bulk() for uAPI v2. > > > > > > The second adds a check on the event.offset field added for uAPI v2. > > > > > > Kent Gibson (2): > > > tests: create mismatch between chip and bulk offsets in wait_multiple > > > tests: add check of event offset to wait_multiple > > > > > > tests/tests-event.c | 3 ++- > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > -- > > > 2.28.0 > > > > > > > I suppose that, if we don't want to do the backward compatible port > > for now, these can be ignored? > > > > It wouldn't hurt to have them either way - in my book it never hurts > to increase test coverage. > > Cheers, > Kent. Ok I thought they only apply to your v2 port but I see they'll work in master too. Bartosz
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 10:39:49AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 10:37 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 09:50:08AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 5:48 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > A couple of patches for the v2 branch that improve the coverage of the > > > > wait_multiple test case. > > > > > > > > The first creates a mismatch between the chip offsets and bulk offsets > > > > to highlight the problem with my initial implementation of > > > > gpiod_line_event_wait_bulk() for uAPI v2. > > > > > > > > The second adds a check on the event.offset field added for uAPI v2. > > > > > > > > Kent Gibson (2): > > > > tests: create mismatch between chip and bulk offsets in wait_multiple > > > > tests: add check of event offset to wait_multiple > > > > > > > > tests/tests-event.c | 3 ++- > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > -- > > > > 2.28.0 > > > > > > > > > > I suppose that, if we don't want to do the backward compatible port > > > for now, these can be ignored? > > > > > > > It wouldn't hurt to have them either way - in my book it never hurts > > to increase test coverage. > > > > Cheers, > > Kent. > > Ok I thought they only apply to your v2 port but I see they'll work in > master too. > Yes and No, i.e. the first is general, the second is requires the offset field in the event, and so only works for a uAPI v2 port. Kent.