Hi Tom, On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 at 05:49, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 04:49:18AM +1300, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > > > On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 at 03:45, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 03:41:33AM +0000, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > > > On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 at 16:35, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 03:04:28PM +0000, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 at 15:52, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 03:38:03PM +0100, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Add an extlinux image that contains a few Ubuntu entries. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Increase the number of sandbox-USB-hub ports to permit this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand what this test adds. In neither the current > > > > > > > Fedora > > > > > > > test nor in this new test are we actually booting something, > > > > > > > we're just > > > > > > > taking a sample extlinux.conf and making sure it doesn't fail. Is > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > that we're testing in a useful fashion now having two labels? > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't think so either, which is why I never did this before. But > > > > > > it > > > > > > turns out that there were some bugs, too. > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand you, sorry. You don't think so either to what? > > > > > > > > I didn't think we needed two extlinux examples on different boot > > > > devices, but we do. > > > > > > I'm not sure it's particularly clear what you're doing here then, or > > > why, but I'll find some time to read it all more deeply. > > > > OK. This test case is how I found the bugs/problems in bootstd that > > are fixed in this series. > > It should be (a) better explained and likely (b) instead of dropping in > a seemingly verbatim installed file a specially crafted bit of content. > We aren't testing "Ubuntu". We are testing multiple labels. > > > > > > > > We should probably be clear about what we're doing in the tests > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > instead of adding seemingly arbitrary distributions add an > > > > > > > extlinux test > > > > > > > and testcases. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is not actually a test case. It is simply creating a new image. > > > > > > The test cases are in the other patches, so please take a look > > > > > > there. > > > > > > > > > > Nothing in this series quickly reads as adding tests and fixing > > > > > problems > > > > > with extlinux parsing, it's all bootmeth stuff? > > > > > > > > It isn't about the actual parsing of the .conf file, although I would > > > > like to add tests there as we have none apart from what I have added > > > > in my PXE series. It's more about having multiple devices with > > > > bootable OSes on them. This series tidies up and fixes this. We need > > > > to have an image available on more than one device to spot these > > > > problems. > > > > > > And the existing tests for pxelinux that we have in mainline already, > > > don't forget those. > > > > Yes. But those tests actually don't use bootstd, do they? > > No, they're testing pxelinux, the thing you said we don't have any tests > for. > > > > > Currently we have two accessible to sandbox, one extlinux and one > > > > EFI*. I decided to add a third, using extlinux. > > > > > > > > Again, this is not a test case, but provides an image for the test > > > > cases in this series. > > > > > > Adding mocked up things for use in sandbox is adding test cases. > > > > One is a test image for use by tests; the other is a test. Perhaps you > > are just saying that there is no point in having one without the > > other? Otherwise, I'm not sure what to do with this feedback. > > Maybe I clarified better above now. You're not testing Ubuntu (or Fedora > or Armbian or ...) you're seeing if various pxelinux files parse > correctly. Making the tests be clearer about what's being tested is > what's missing at least in part.
You want me to remove the word 'Ubuntu' from the test files? This is what I get when I install u-boot-tools so I am trying to use that, rather than invent my own thing. This is the same approach I've taken with Fedora and Armbian and I think it makes the most sense. Regards, Simon
