On 3/20/2024 6:06 AM, Gregory Etelson wrote: > Hello Ferruh, > >>BUT overall how can we catch issues like this in the feature, we don't >>have a good way to test testpmd flow commands. >>@Ori, @Gregory, do you have any idea? >>cc'ed CI mail list too. > > We have a tool for unit tests based on the testpmd. > The tool details are here: > https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1cHrPwx4fUJ6ibUCtHd4kNKsrmmvQvvOj?usp=drive_link > > <https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1cHrPwx4fUJ6ibUCtHd4kNKsrmmvQvvOj?usp=drive_link>. > There's also a short description here: > https://inbox.dpdk.org/ci/2a287ee7-cda4-f2ab-a4e6-a47021f85...@nvidia.com/ > <https://inbox.dpdk.org/ci/2a287ee7-cda4-f2ab-a4e6-a47021f85...@nvidia.com/> > > Consider an option when a code patch is accompanied with a short test > script that validates that patch functionality. > DPDK CI can run the script to verify that the patch functions correctly. > >
Thanks Gregory, I missed this proposal, we need something to verify flow APIs, so +1 to the effort. What is the status of incorporating this feature into dts? But I guess it won't catch this issue, as it uses full flow commands. This issue is related to the testpmd command parsing code. I wonder if we can find a way to verify testpmd parsing code?
