Skip to content

Are FILESYSTEM tests available with small targets ? #7407

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
jeromecoutant opened this issue Jul 3, 2018 · 12 comments
Closed

Are FILESYSTEM tests available with small targets ? #7407

jeromecoutant opened this issue Jul 3, 2018 · 12 comments
Assignees

Comments

@jeromecoutant
Copy link
Collaborator

Description

Hi

I think some RAM size check should be included in features/tests/filesystem tests ?

Ex:
mbed test -t GCC_ARM -m NUCLEO_F070RB -v -n features-tests-filesystem-*

+-----------------------+---------------+----------------------------------------------------+---------+--------------------+-------------+
| target | platform_name | test suite | result | elapsed_time (sec) | copy_method |
+-----------------------+---------------+----------------------------------------------------+---------+--------------------+-------------+
| NUCLEO_F070RB-GCC_ARM | NUCLEO_F070RB | features-tests-filesystem-buffered_block_device | TIMEOUT | 46.31 | default |
| NUCLEO_F070RB-GCC_ARM | NUCLEO_F070RB | features-tests-filesystem-fat_filesystem | TIMEOUT | 27.09 | default |
| NUCLEO_F070RB-GCC_ARM | NUCLEO_F070RB | features-tests-filesystem-flashsim_block_device | FAIL | 15.67 | default |
| NUCLEO_F070RB-GCC_ARM | NUCLEO_F070RB | features-tests-filesystem-heap_block_device | FAIL | 16.43 | default |
| NUCLEO_F070RB-GCC_ARM | NUCLEO_F070RB | features-tests-filesystem-mbr_block_device | FAIL | 15.92 | default |
| NUCLEO_F070RB-GCC_ARM | NUCLEO_F070RB | features-tests-filesystem-multipart_fat_filesystem | TIMEOUT | 27.65 | default |
| NUCLEO_F070RB-GCC_ARM | NUCLEO_F070RB | features-tests-filesystem-util_block_device | TIMEOUT | 25.93 | default |
+-----------------------+---------------+----------------------------------------------------+---------+--------------------+-------------+

Issue request type

[ ] Question
[ ] Enhancement
[x] Bug

@jeromecoutant
Copy link
Collaborator Author

jeromecoutant commented Sep 11, 2018

@davidsaada
[Mirrored to Jira]

@davidsaada
Copy link
Contributor

davidsaada commented Sep 11, 2018

@jeromecoutant This problem has been fixed in #7465.
As it has only been merged on August 1 (while this issue had been opened earlier), I suggest you retest it with master (or any release starting 5.9.5).
[Mirrored to Jira]

@jeromecoutant
Copy link
Collaborator Author

jeromecoutant commented Sep 11, 2018

I am currently checking this result:

target platform_name test suite result elapsed_time (sec) copy_method
DISCO_L072CZ_LRWAN1-IAR DISCO_L072CZ_LRWAN1 features-storage-tests-filesystem-fat_filesystem FAIL 19.9 default
DISCO_L072CZ_LRWAN1-IAR DISCO_L072CZ_LRWAN1 features-storage-tests-filesystem-multipart_fat_filesystem FAIL 19.79 default

Thx
[Mirrored to Jira]

@davidsaada
Copy link
Contributor

davidsaada commented Sep 11, 2018

Right. Indeed #7465 only dealt with BD tests, not with file system ones. Will need to open an additional PR for that.
[Mirrored to Jira]

@jeromecoutant
Copy link
Collaborator Author

jeromecoutant commented Sep 17, 2018

Will need to open an additional PR for that.

any update ?
[Mirrored to Jira]

@davidsaada
Copy link
Contributor

davidsaada commented Sep 17, 2018

any update ?

Sorry for not updating. Went over the FAT tests, and they seem to be quite hard to modify for this purpose. The current FAT tests require quite block devices on the one hand, but the format process only allocates small chunks of the memory on demand (which is really very FAT specific). Now, if we try to allocate the full size of the Heap Block Device in advance (to see if we have enough memory), the test will fail for all platforms (even the ones that can run the tests OK). Otherwise, we face the problem with the smaller devices.
@geky What do you say?
[Mirrored to Jira]

@geky
Copy link
Contributor

geky commented Sep 19, 2018

Hmm, could we find out how much RAM is used by the HeapBlockDevice after running the FAT tests and then use that as our threshhold (with some margin)?
[Mirrored to Jira]

@jeromecoutant
Copy link
Collaborator Author

jeromecoutant commented Sep 24, 2018

So, there will be no update for file system tests ?

Should I push a PR with like this :

#if defined(TARGET_xxx)
#error [NOT_SUPPORTED] Insufficient RAM size
#endif

[Mirrored to Jira]

@davidsaada
Copy link
Contributor

davidsaada commented Sep 25, 2018

@jeromecoutant Sorry for not being responsive. On holiday vacation until 2.10.
@geky's solution seems like the most appropriate one, even if not optimal. Will implement it when I come back from the holidays. As for your suggestion, we prefer not to add target specific code to our tests right now. We'll probably revise our testing system to have a few levels of testing based on board types, but this is more for the long term.
[Mirrored to Jira]

@ARMmbed ARMmbed deleted a comment from ciarmcom Oct 2, 2018
@adbridge
Copy link
Contributor

adbridge commented Oct 4, 2018

Internal Jira reference: https://jira.arm.com/browse/IOTSTOR-476

@jeromecoutant
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Hi
Any update ?
Thx

@davidsaada
Copy link
Contributor

@jeromecoutant I'm on it now. Didn't have too much time to handle this for 5.11, due to more prioritized issues.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants