[ICD] Add automation for ICDB 1.1 cert test #40007
Draft
+343
−206
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request adds an automated test case TC_ICDB_1_1 for the ICD Check-In Protocol. The changes include a new Python test script, modifications to the test application configuration to speed up ICD state transitions, and updates to the PICS file to enable the new test. The new test script is well-structured, but I've found several instances of incorrect error handling logic that could lead to confusing test failures. I've also suggested a small simplification in the test cleanup logic.
| try: | ||
| registered_clients = await self.read_single_attribute_check_success(endpoint=0, cluster=Clusters.Objects.IcdManagement, attribute=attributes.RegisteredClients) | ||
| except InteractionModelError as e: | ||
| asserts.assert_equal(e.status, Status.Success, "Failed to read RegisteredClients attribute") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The error handling logic here is incorrect. If an InteractionModelError is caught, it signifies a failure, so e.status will not be Status.Success. The current assertion will always fail, but with a potentially confusing message. It's better to directly fail the test with asserts.fail and provide a clear error message that includes the exception details.
Suggested change
| asserts.assert_equal(e.status, Status.Success, "Failed to read RegisteredClients attribute") | |
| asserts.fail(f"Failed to read RegisteredClients attribute: {e}") |
| try: | ||
| await self.send_single_cmd(cmd=commands.UnregisterClient(checkInNodeID=client.checkInNodeID), endpoint=0) | ||
| except InteractionModelError as e: | ||
| asserts.assert_equal(e.status, Status.Success, f"Failed to unregister client {client.checkInNodeID}: {e}") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This error handling logic is incorrect for the same reason as the previous one. An InteractionModelError indicates a failure, so e.status will not be Status.Success. The assertion should be replaced with asserts.fail for clear and direct failure reporting.
Suggested change
| asserts.assert_equal(e.status, Status.Success, f"Failed to unregister client {client.checkInNodeID}: {e}") | |
| asserts.fail(f"Failed to unregister client {client.checkInNodeID}: {e}") |
| f"ActiveModeThreshold: {active_mode_threshold_ms}ms") | ||
|
|
||
| except InteractionModelError as e: | ||
| asserts.assert_equal(e.status, Status.Success, "Failed to read ICD configuration attributes") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This error handling logic is also incorrect. An InteractionModelError indicates a failure, so e.status will not be Status.Success. The assertion should be replaced with asserts.fail for clear and direct failure reporting, including the exception details.
Suggested change
| asserts.assert_equal(e.status, Status.Success, "Failed to read ICD configuration attributes") | |
| asserts.fail(f"Failed to read ICD configuration attributes: {e}") |
Comment on lines
+174
to
+180
| if require_unregister: | ||
| try: | ||
| if registration_info: | ||
| await self.th2.UnpairDevice(self.dut_node_id) | ||
| except Exception as e: | ||
| asserts.fail(f"Failed to unregister client: {e}") | ||
| pass |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The cleanup logic in the finally block can be simplified for better readability and maintainability.
- The check
if require_unregister:is sufficient to determine if unpairing is needed. Theregistration_infocheck is redundant. - The
passstatement on line 180 is unreachable becauseasserts.failraises an exception and terminates the execution.
Suggested change
| if require_unregister: | |
| try: | |
| if registration_info: | |
| await self.th2.UnpairDevice(self.dut_node_id) | |
| except Exception as e: | |
| asserts.fail(f"Failed to unregister client: {e}") | |
| pass | |
| if require_unregister: | |
| try: | |
| await self.th2.UnpairDevice(self.dut_node_id) | |
| except Exception as e: | |
| asserts.fail(f"Failed to unregister client: {e}") |
|
PR #40007: Size comparison from d0ded4d to 673bece Full report (59 builds for bl602, bl702, bl702l, cc13x4_26x4, cc32xx, efr32, esp32, linux, nrfconnect, nxp, psoc6, qpg, stm32, telink, tizen)
|
|
PR #40007: Size comparison from d0ded4d to 7483ee6 Full report (11 builds for cc13x4_26x4, cc32xx, qpg, stm32, tizen)
|
|
PR #40007: Size comparison from d0ded4d to f4314b8 Full report (35 builds for bl602, bl702, bl702l, cc13x4_26x4, cc32xx, efr32, nrfconnect, psoc6, qpg, stm32, telink, tizen)
|
|
PR #40007: Size comparison from d0ded4d to 172e74f Increases above 0.2%:
Full report (59 builds for bl602, bl702, bl702l, cc13x4_26x4, cc32xx, efr32, esp32, linux, nrfconnect, nxp, psoc6, qpg, stm32, telink, tizen)
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
DO NOT REVIEW - Still testing with CI
Summary
TBU
Related issues
TBU
Testing
TBU
Readability checklist
The checklist below will help the reviewer finish PR review in time and keep the
code readable:
descriptive
“When in Rome…”
rule (coding style)
See: Pull Request Guidelines