[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [LTP] Re: TET [Mea Culpa]
By setting TET_API_COMPLIANT to False the test cases could remain
separate from the test harness. By doing this there would be no dependency
the TET harness to execute any of the tests. The only requirement would be
that the tests return zero on success. I have successfully ran the
quickhit tests under
TET3.3 with exception of the ones that take command line arguments. As far
I can tell there is no way to pass command line arguments to a test case
running TET without its API framework.
Some of the advantages I see to using TET:
1. The scenario file can be setup to allow tests to be grouped. This
accommodate those who want to test a specific feature (e.g. io,
2. The scenarios can be setup to run tests repeatedly, in parallel, at
random, and/or for a specified amount of time.
3. The results of all the tests are collected into one journal file in
uniform way. Output to standard out and err can also be recorded
the journal file by setting the TET_OUTPUT_CAPTURE variable. This
is then easily parsed to summarize the results.
4. TET will build, execute and clean up the tests.
5. Easy to setup. Once the test source has been installed within the
TET directory structure only three short config files need to be
created. One for building, one for executing and one for the
cleanup. Secondly a scenario file must be created. This is a
list of tests. All tests can be lumped together or separate
may be set up as I mentioned in item #2 above.
1. TET does not allow for command line arguments to be passed. Tests
require arguments would need a wrapper.
If used in this way I believe TET is a good solution. It allows the tests
remain separate from the harness and provides many test management
The "TETware User Guide" Revision 1.3 explains the demo test suites that
accompany the TET3.3 download. These demos provide a good example of how