[lsb-discuss] ALSA testing != 0
stewb at linux-foundation.org
Wed Apr 29 04:39:38 PDT 2009
Denis Silakov wrote:
> Robert Schweikert wrote:
>> During the F2F we bumped against the test coverage concern w.r.t. ALSA a
>> few times. While the coverage is not stellar, it is also not as bad as
>> we thought as the attached analysis shows.
>> I am not sure how we track upstream testing within our coverage data.
>> Further I made the assumption that the tests are valuable, i.e. more
>> than "the interface exists and doesn't crash".
> Well, we don't track upstream coverage itself; we only track coverage
> for tests included in the certification suite.
> A usual process is to adopt existing upstream tests (if any) in LSB test
> suites - drop tests for non-LSB symbols, make the tests themselves LSB
> compliant, etc..
> (I guess Stew can say more about integration of upstream tests into LSB
> test suite).
> In general, it seems that we should investigate existing libasound tests
> and try to use them.
My usual process is:
1) See how the tests can be packaged/run in a standalone fashion,
against the system library rather than the build tree (for typical unit
2) See how I can patch in support for tet journal generation. Sometimes
it's easy, if the test harness is adaptable.
3) Try to build the tests with lsbcc, patching as needed
We can certainly open a bug with the alsa test info, so it's captured
More information about the lsb-discuss