Hi Marek, had a short look on your script yesterday. Looks clean and well designed, nice job.
Am Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 09:38:58PM +0100 schrieb Marek Vasut: > On 2/6/25 1:38 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Marek, > > > > On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 at 07:37, Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: > > > > > > Add implementation of mkenvimage written purely in bourne shell. > > > > > > This is not a replacement for mkenvimage tool, but rather a simple > > > implementation which can be used in environments where mkenvimage > > > itself cannot be deployed due to various constraints, like hardware > > > manufacturing plants, but where bourne shell and basic tool are > > > already available. > > > > > > The external dependencies which are not shell built-ins are gzip > > > and grep. > > > > > > All mkenvimage parameters are implemented and compatible with the > > > C implementation of mkenvimage. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> > > > --- > > > Cc: Joe Hershberger <joe.hershber...@ni.com> > > > Cc: Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> > > > --- > > > tools/mkenvimage.sh | 126 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 126 insertions(+) > > > create mode 100755 tools/mkenvimage.sh > > > > Would it be worth adding a simple test for this? > Sure, is there an existing test for similar case I can look at ? I thought about testing yesterday, but had no good idea on top, but now it's discussed anyways … How about throwing the same input at the c and the sh version and assert the output is the same? For more sophisticated tests it should be tested with both variants. Greets Alex
