-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 76
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
Add Development+Testing section to README.md #101
Draft
ianrrees
wants to merge
2
commits into
rust-embedded-community:master
Choose a base branch
from
ianrrees:testing-links
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Draft
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should we instead just incorporate them as a member of the workspace here, so they don't get outdated?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe, that's partly what I'm wondering about in #100 .
I'd imagine the overwhelming majority of users of usb-device aren't going to be interested in this device-specific test code. As someone who spends more time tinkering with code that implements usb-device traits, rather than usb-device itself, I'd prefer to have the device-specific usb-device test code with whatever HAL it needs. That HAL already will have usb-device as a dependency, which I believe covers the versioning concerns.
That said, I think we could bring together the documentation from these usb-device test repos, because that's mostly about testing usb-device in general. I could imagine that documentation and test app expanding to cover other topics that might span multiple implementations of usb-device, for instance performance or feature sets.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The
tests/folder here isn't intended for users of usb-device, this is purely for CI and maintaince - as such, I don't think we should consider user concerns here.While having device-specific code isn't the purpose of
usb-device, we ultimately still need to verify the functionality ofusb-device, which at this moment requires hardware. As such, I think having HITL (hardware-in-the-loop) test code situated here is a big bonus. This will give developers a platform to bring their own targets up for testing if they so require.I worry that pointing to separate repos for the device-specific test code will result in the situation that we currently have in the future where the test code is lost and no one knows how to test :P
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My comment could've been written better. With "users". I was referring to both the people who would use
usb-device(perhaps indirectly) in their projects, and people who are interested in changing/testingusb-deviceand code that interfaces with it. Maybe something like "consumers" and "developers" could be used for these two groups - I think we should keep both in mind.I agree that the details of how testing works probably don't matter to the consumers, but think it is still important to not make things worse for them. Putting stuff in usb-device that won't be used by consumers is, to a small degree, making things worse for them - it's bloat that manifests in wasted bandwidth and disk. Part of the question is how that presumably-small impact to many people compares to the impact to a small number of developers.
The test code I made was a low-effort thing (in terms of
usb-device) to support #60 - I knew basically how testing 'usb-device' worked at a technical level, my question about testing in #60 was more about expectations around testing proposed changes to 'usb-device'. That said, I knew how the testing technically worked because I'd looked at the test source code - the obvious room for improvement there is about improving documentation for testingusb-device.