-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 392
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
Merge with Sangoma's sipp fork #109
Comments
Well, all patches are welcome of course. Thanks! I personally like the idea of using it without ncurses. As for the others:
|
Alright, so my time has opened up a bit and I'm going to try and get the rest of this pushed through. Hopefully the next set of stuff should be ncurses decoupling. It just a bit painful to backport changes since I'm porting pre-uncrustified diffs 😭. Is there any interest in a python/pytest wrapper around sipp? We got one kicking around, I don't know if you guys would be interested in it. |
Has been added just now in bc7b536.
Not sure. I already made a few tests with bash in the /regress/ directory. I don't have an opinion about moving to python, but it shouldn't hurt. |
Well its not tests for sipp, its for using sipp to test something else in an automated way. Scenario testing. |
Then I'm not sure it fits in here. You can always throw it on github and see it interest is sparked. I bet there are a lot of python (and ruby, and bash) test suites that incorporate calls to one or several sipp instances; all with their own advantages and disadvantages. |
Fair enough |
Okay, so here's the status:
There is only one other thing I want to get upstream which I think is useful, but needs some care to do nicely -- we did it as a quick hack:
Stuff were we we still diverge that might be of interest but needs some care (and I'm curious if there's interest):
Now that said, going forward, this isn't just a dump-and-run type merge. We'll be using this repository and maintaining our work here going forward. I've got explicit permission from the guys upstairs 😄. Internally we've been considering replacing SIPp with something else because of a lot of the shortcoming with the scenario files (autogenerating them isn't that great of a workaround either) and with reporting. Instead we've decided to try and extend SIPp so it can be hooked into from a scripting language like Python. Hopefully you guys are open to this kind of work. |
Okay, diving into the code looks like there's already a |
|
I think that over complicates it a bit. Why not just try to load the path and only if it fails search next to the scenario data? That keeps backwards comparable behaviour. What are the odds someone is going to have pcaps and so forth in both places?
Very little and there's really no reason it couldn't be done, considering how sipp parses command line flags (say compared to getopt_long). |
+1, in fact, that was supposed to be the logic we have in our current branch, isn't it? no need to break backwards compatibility
I remember we did this, but can't remember the use case?. If it's not used by our regression I'd say it does not belong upstream yet (no point in adding a feature whose value is still iffy) and we should just keep the code around in our branch in case we truly need it later |
@moises-silva yeah, agreed. I can't remember why we did it either. But its worth bringing up so if someone asks, at least they know its been done. |
As for loading from both places, that does sound less complicated indeed :P I'd go as far as to say that it should first try from the location relative to the scenario, and first then from the CWD:
|
Sounds good. We did a quick hack, so I'm going to spend a bit more time on this. |
Okay, everything pertinent for us at Sangoma to move from our sipp to here has been done. Enough that I think I can consider this closed. |
Just a note that all my sipp work isn't dead, I'm just tied up with other priorities at the moment. |
No worries. I know how it is :) |
Hey, so we have our own internal sipp fork, started off of sipp-3.2 release, which we would like to spend some time merging upstream. We currently don't have it hosted online here yet... but there's quite a bit of work you guys might be interested in. Some stuff I listed may or may not have been done again independantly - I haven't had a chance to fully discover this repo's code base, so sorry if I list what appears a non-feature
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: