-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.1k
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
clear dstoffset when DSTOffsetRequired is true #28654
clear dstoffset when DSTOffsetRequired is true #28654
Conversation
PR #28654: Size comparison from c57aec6 to 9b95e61 Increases (13 builds for bl602, bl702, cc32xx, cyw30739, esp32, nrfconnect, psoc6, telink)
Decreases (11 builds for bl702l, efr32, esp32, psoc6, telink)
Full report (60 builds for bl602, bl702, bl702l, cc32xx, cyw30739, efr32, esp32, k32w, linux, mbed, nrfconnect, psoc6, qpg, telink)
|
src/app/clusters/time-synchronization-server/time-synchronization-server.cpp
Show resolved
Hide resolved
if (dstState == TimeState::kActive || dstState == TimeState::kChanged) | ||
{ | ||
emitDSTStatusEvent(commandPath.mEndpointId, false); | ||
} | ||
response.DSTOffsetRequired = true; | ||
} | ||
} | ||
else | ||
{ | ||
response.DSTOffsetRequired = true; |
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.
This codepath needs to be exercised in a test....
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.
If you mean the DSTOffsetRequired, it's tested in cert tests. If you mean the status event cert test timesync 2.11 should hit this path IIUC the states - it checks for dst status events as the dst goes on and off. To be fair, it's failing currently, but the test exists.
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.
@cecille @fessehaeve I mean that we have a code change here, which is fixing an issue, but there are no test changes. That means this code is not being exercised in (automated) tests.
It's possible there are manual cert tests for this, but ideally we would have automated tests here...
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 gap is not the test, it's the example apps. Static zap means we're not covering all cases in CI. Moving to dynamic app testing would be lovely but is a SDK wide problem
Going to update branch to get rid of the iotSDK requirement (it's been turned off). |
PR #28654: Size comparison from d0da504 to 312b190 Increases (12 builds for cc32xx, esp32, nrfconnect, psoc6, telink)
Decreases (15 builds for bl602, bl702, bl702l, efr32, psoc6, telink)
Full report (60 builds for bl602, bl702, bl702l, cc32xx, cyw30739, efr32, esp32, k32w, linux, mbed, nrfconnect, psoc6, qpg, telink)
|
Co-authored-by: C Freeman <cecille@google.com>
Fixes #28637