Fix usrsocktest #354
Fix usrsocktest #354
Conversation
… false since usrsock_conn_s::resp::result contain more detailed info and fix the below error in usrsocktest: Testing group "WakeWithSignal" => [TEST ASSERT FAILED!] In function "do_usrsock_blocking_connect_thread": line 200: Assertion `(ssize_t)((*get_errno_ptr())) == (ssize_t)((test_abort ? 113 : 4))' failed. got value: 110 should be: 113 [TEST ASSERT FAILED!] In function "do_usrsock_blocking_connect_thread": line 200: Assertion `(ssize_t)((*get_errno_ptr())) == (ssize_t)((test_abort ? 113 : 4))' failed. got value: 110 should be: 113 [TEST ASSERT FAILED!] In function "do_usrsock_blocking_connect_thread": line 200: Assertion `(ssize_t)((*get_errno_ptr())) == (ssize_t)((test_abort ? 113 : 4))' failed. got value: 110 should be: 113 [TEST ASSERT FAILED!] In function "do_wake_test": line 567: Assertion `(bool)((usrsocktest_test_failed)) == (bool)(false)' failed. got value: 1 should be: 0 Group "WakeWithSignal": [FAILED] Change-Id: I0cbd9d659e3ecf8be457bec94df2f33f647314a1 Signed-off-by: Xiang Xiao <xiaoxiang@xiaomi.com>
Fix the below error in usrsocktest: Testing group "WakeWithSignal" => [TEST ASSERT FAILED!] In function "do_usrsock_blocking_socket_thread": line 122: Assertion `(ssize_t)((*get_errno_ptr())) == (ssize_t)((115))' failed. got value: 123 should be: 115 [TEST ASSERT FAILED!] In function "do_wake_test": line 567: Assertion `(bool)((usrsocktest_test_failed)) == (bool)(false)' failed. got value: 1 should be: 0 Group "WakeWithSignal": [FAILED] Change-Id: Ib80a078c2418a434343e1c2674d6826a9a089ce7 Signed-off-by: Xiang Xiao <xiaoxiang@xiaomi.com>
|
Fix the issue mention in: |
| */ | ||
|
|
||
| ret = g_usrsock_sockif.si_setup(psock, protocol); | ||
| if (ret == -ENETDOWN) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But does this break the dual usrsock / nuttx tcp-stack use-case? Device where connectivity can be configured to use usrsock or nuttx tcp-stack?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You mean runtime switch between usrsock and real tcp/ip stack instead of compile decision?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Right, when usrsock daemon not running, try nuttx tcp-stack instead.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If so, we need revert this patch, but adjust usrsocktest too. Actually, I think many testcase in usrsocktest is too strict to verfiy the errno must equal some specific value. A little internal modification like this will break the testcase.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree, usrsocktest errno checking should be more relaxed and allow different error values. Specific error values should only be checked when they are really expected.
3 participants
No description provided.