Return-path: Received: from mail-yw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.213.46]:40167 "EHLO mail-yw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756515Ab2GCPyY (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jul 2012 11:54:24 -0400 Received: by yhmm54 with SMTP id m54so6220600yhm.19 for ; Tue, 03 Jul 2012 08:54:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 08:54:23 -0700 Message-ID: (sfid-20120703_175428_252549_F2C558B9) Subject: Re: wlan automated tests From: Paul Stewart To: Piotr.Nakraszewicz@tieto.com Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, filip.matusiak@tieto.com, mcgrof@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 5:47 AM, wrote: > Hi, > > What is the current status of wlan automated tests? > > I found 3 started projects: > > 1. wifi-test: > http://wireless.kernel.org/en/developers/Testing/wifi-test > But it looks dead. Last commit is from 2010. > > 2. LTP: > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.wireless.general/19759 > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ltp/7884 > > The last comment I found was from 2009 from Luis R. Rodriguez: > "The GSoC student fell off from the face of the earth without even notice so the project was never finished. The project is up for grabs for anyone now to implement." > > Is that still valid? > > 3. Chromium Wifi tests: > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.wireless.general/57576 > > The problem is they are designed to test chromium OS so it looks like they can't be used for purpose described here: It should be reasonably straightforward to use this setup with something other than ChromeOS. Most of the work required to do so would circle around creating platform-specific routines used to establish and monitor status of connections -- the site_wlan_connect.py and site_wlan_wait_state.py scripts. > https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/en/Google_Summer_of_Code_2009#Automation_of_testing_using_mac80211_hwsim_and_Orbit > "Ideally we'd like to see automated tests run weekly to ensure there are no regressions for basic functionality. To test mac80211 and cfg80211 we can use and advance mac80211_hwsim as required without the need to actually use hardware." > > > I'm planning to use and extend one of these projects and I'd like to know which one is preferable. > Any hints? > > Pozdrawiam / Best regards, > Piotr > >