On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 03:23:34PM -0400, Nícolas F. R. A. Prado wrote: > On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 03:29:00PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > So, I would interpret the overall result for the suite as being "No > > errors were found in any of the cards discovered" if there is no > > configuration file specified which enumerates the set of cards that are > > expected (if there is a config file that's a different matter, we know > > what we're expecting). I'm not sure that the different behaviour for 0 > > cards is super useful. > Right... So what we want to be doing is adding a config file for every platform > defining the card(s) and PCMs expected, so that when they're missing a test > failure will be triggered which is even more helpful. Although I've noticed that > only missing PCMs are detected currently, but I imagine it should be possible to > to extend the code to detect missing cards as well. It seems like a reasonable approach for systems that do want to have this confirmation. > I take it the intention is to expand the conf.d directory with configs for all > platforms currently being tested then? There's only one example file there so I > wasn't sure. I think it's a question for people working on individual systems if they want that coverage, for example I don't really care for the things in my CI because I have higher level stuff which will notice any newly missing tests so I don't need the test to do anything here.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
