tests/gnrc_ipv6_nib: rtr_ltime test#20372
Conversation
benpicco
added
the
CI: ready for build
|
Rebased, meaning PR can now be merged since test does not fail anymore since the code being tested was fixed (through merge of https://github.com/RIOT-OS/RIOT/pull/20329/files#diff-fba26fd610698922256809a70531c3b18dc624a771563ea8887a08bbf762c457L1470-L1471) |
|
Force push: Modified commit: Adjusted for changes meanwhile made to master (via bb9ca2e) |
Keep testing for options before removing default router
tests/net/gnrc_ipv6_nib/main.c
Outdated
| /* no further options */ | ||
| TEST_ASSERT_NULL(pkt->next->next->next); | ||
| gnrc_pktbuf_release(pkt); | ||
| if (is_first_check) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could you factor this out to a new function, please?
And then not call this inside test_handle_pkt__rtr_adv__options_success().
Effectively it is testing if Duplicate Address Detection is triggered by SLAAC.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes. I thought since SLAAC is triggered by the Prefix Information Option in the Router Advertisement, I could leave its DAD test there. But your suggestion makes test_handle_pkt__rtr_adv__options_success() idempotent, which can be helpful.
fabian18
left a comment
fabian18
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
make -C tests/net/gnrc_ipv6_nib flash term
OK (53 tests)
{ "threads": [{ "name": "idle", "stack_size": 8192, "stack_used": 436}]}
{ "threads": [{ "name": "main", "stack_size": 12288, "stack_used": 2564}]}
github-merge-queue
bot
removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks
4 participants
Contribution description
This PR only provides a test to verify that
_handle_rtr_timeoutdoes not have any effect on any RA options:Emphasis added to highlight what part exactly this test covers. (In particular, it does not cover testing that the "Router Lifetime" has any effect to "the router's usefulness as a default router".)
Test is implemented as part of the "base test function", causing 4 tests to fail if not providing an implementation.
Issues/PRs references
Test is fulfilled by #20329 and #20371 (alone each, but they are also not mutually exclusive).
While #20329 itself already provides tests, this PR is an additional test (so no duplicate tests across PRs or sth). (In fact, they do not seem to cover the code of that PR; they still succeed if only keeping the tests from the PR.)