Skip to content

Conversation

@kamleshbhalui
Copy link
Owner

No description provided.

@kamleshbhalui kamleshbhalui force-pushed the v1model_to_dpdk_test_port branch from c1426f4 to 704f616 Compare July 4, 2022 04:02
@kamleshbhalui kamleshbhalui self-assigned this Jul 4, 2022
Copy link
Collaborator

@usha1830 usha1830 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I see more .spec files than the test P4 files. Why is that?
We would need to check what the tests are doing and avoid repetitions as much as possible.
Also we need to see what to do about Copyright.

"Error compiling"
testdata/p4_16_samples/psa-dpdk-issue2314.p4
)

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

All failing cases with same fail message used as regex should be combined

@@ -0,0 +1,100 @@
/*
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I am not sure what the copyright message should be. Also this file does not include psa.p4, not required?

@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
/*
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

While porting, we should ignore the tests which does not involve any backend processing. This will not compile with ./p4c-dpdk I assume and our regression script will not run this, does it?

@usha1830
Copy link
Collaborator

The purpose of this porting is to find any latent bugs. So, lets do some initial analysis of the failures and file JIRA issues.
Also, we would need a way to automate validation of .spec files.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants