Skip to content
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

[OOB 5.10] IP connectivity test failed #8028

Closed
toyowata opened this issue Sep 7, 2018 · 7 comments
Closed

[OOB 5.10] IP connectivity test failed #8028

toyowata opened this issue Sep 7, 2018 · 7 comments

Comments

@toyowata
Copy link
Contributor

toyowata commented Sep 7, 2018

Description

Mbed OS 5.10 OOB - IP connectivity test failed (Target: K64F, Host: Windows and Mac).

Expected result

All TEST_APPS should pass.

Actual result

test_cmdline is skipped and TCPSERVER_ACCEPT was inconclusive.

Versions

PS C:\test\oob\mbed-os> mbed ls
mbed-os (#3fb5781af180, tag: mbed-os-5.10.0-rc1)

python 2.7.15
mbed-cli 1.8.0
icetea 1.0.1

Test result

PS C:\test\oob\mbed-os> mbed test -m k64f -t arm --icetea -v
[mbed] Working path "C:\test\oob\mbed-os" (program)
[mbed] Auto-installing missing Python modules...

(snip)

+--------------------------------+--------------+------------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+-----------+----------+
| Testcase                       |   Verdict    |            Fail Reason             |                 Skip Reason                 | platforms | duration |
+--------------------------------+--------------+------------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+-----------+----------+
| test_cmdline                   |     skip     |                                    | Test requiring application binary not build |           |    0     |
| UDPSOCKET_BIND_PORT            |     pass     |                                    |                                             |    K64F   |  18.121  |
| TCPSOCKET_BIND_PORT            |     pass     |                                    |                                             |    K64F   |  2.034   |
| TCPSERVER_ACCEPT               | inconclusive | No suitable local device available |                                             |           |  0.196   |
| TCPSOCKET_ECHOTEST_BURST_SHORT |     pass     |                                    |                                             |    K64F   |  6.691   |
+--------------------------------+--------------+------------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+-----------+----------+
+---------------+----------------+
|    Summary    |                |
+---------------+----------------+
| Final Verdict |  INCONCLUSIVE  |
|     count     |       5        |
|    passrate   |    100.00 %    |
|      pass     |       3        |
|      skip     |       1        |
|  inconclusive |       1        |
|    Duration   | 0:00:27.042000 |
+---------------+----------------+
14:09:43.543 | RSP     MainThread: Cleaning up ResourceProvider.
14:09:43.553 | RSP     MainThread: Cleaning up allocator.
14:09:43.559 Cleanup done.

Complete log file :
mbed-os-oob-icetea.txt

Issue request type

[x] Question
[ ] Enhancement
[x] Bug

@0xc0170
Copy link
Contributor

0xc0170 commented Sep 7, 2018

@ARMmbed/mbed-os-test

@juhaylinen
Copy link
Contributor

juhaylinen commented Sep 7, 2018

TCPSERVER_ACCEPT test case requires 2 devices. https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbed-os/blob/master/TEST_APPS/testcases/netsocket/TCPSERVER_ACCEPT.py#L38

The test result is inconclusive if only one device is found.

@OPpuolitaival
Copy link
Contributor

OPpuolitaival commented Sep 7, 2018

@jonikula can you check this? I think that it could be nice to tell for example (1/2 suitable devices found) or some another way to make clear that need more devices

@jonikula
Copy link

jonikula commented Sep 7, 2018

That's something we could easily add to the logging and perhaps to the failure reason as well.

@OPpuolitaival
Copy link
Contributor

@0xc0170 this is not a bug. Works as expected. I will create usability improvement ticket related to this.

@MarceloSalazar
Copy link

MarceloSalazar commented Sep 10, 2018

@OPpuolitaival can you please add a link to the enhancement as result of this effort?

@MarceloSalazar
Copy link

Hi guys, I've hit the same problem. I didn't understand why the test was inconclusive and whether I needed extra HW platforms.
I believe the solution is to document what are the requirements for each of the tests.

Here is a PR (#8073) with a good start, but IMO should be extended to explain those cases in more detail. Thanks!

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

8 participants