Re: testing with Ravenscar task

[Niklas Holsti <nobody@nowhere.fi>]

Lionel Draghi wrote:
> Niklas Holsti wrote:
> ...
> 
>> Ravenscar task bodies (at least those with just one suspension point) 
>> can usually be made very simple by putting the real computation in a 
>> procedure defined outside the task. This procedure can be unit-tested 
>> in the normal way.
> 
> I agree with you, Niklas.
> But what if I want to do some integration tests?
> Switching directly from unit tests stricto sensu to tests on the whole 
> executable may be a big step.

If by integration test you mean putting together some, but not all, 
modules of the program, and checking that they work together, then one 
way to do that is to make the test driver (the main procedure for the 
integration test) call those "computational" procedures for each task, 
one by one, in the order they would (or should) be called by the actual 
tasks in the tested scenario. You would again omit to "with" the actual 
tasks so that the test driver is totally in charge. Of course this does 
not give the true timing, but the test instrumentation clobbers timing 
anyway.

If you have a large program with lots of tasks, this approach gets 
cumbersome in the later stages of a bottom-up integration process as the 
test driver becomes very large. To solve that one could "with" the tasks 
for the modules that have been tested, considering these modules as 
trusted black boxes with autonomous activity, while still driving the 
new modules-under-test from the test driver. Of course this brings back 
the problems with task termination and gcov output.

--
Niklas Holsti
Tidorum Ltd

niklas holsti tidorum fi
       .      @       .