Attention is currently required from: pespin.
fixeria has posted comments on this change by pespin. ( https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-ttcn3-hacks/+/37920?usp=email )
Change subject: s1gw: Add initial PFCP support emulating UPF ......................................................................
Patch Set 2:
(3 comments)
File s1gw/ConnHdlr.ttcn:
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-ttcn3-hacks/+/37920/comment/d90492f3_1e30a... : PS2, Line 185: float Tval := 5.0
Because sometimes the timeouts were too tight, specially when creating tons of sessions where then a […]
I see, but this function is all about the S1AP Setup. This particular message does not trigger any PFCP procedures; the PDUs are passed as-is. This is why I am wondering why and whether it really belongs to this patch logically.
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-ttcn3-hacks/+/37920/comment/c559db86_1ce8b... : PS2, Line 269: do_repeat := true
only once, but since it's an activate, it has to be a repeat otherwise when code goes into whatever […]
Ah, I see. Indeed, we need to `repeat` then.
File s1gw/S1GW_Tests.ttcn:
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-ttcn3-hacks/+/37920/comment/4d10e572_b9f11... : PS2, Line 81: id) alive
TBH I don't think it's worth spending time in splitting this ...
On the one hand, yes. One the other, I oftentimes feel puzzled when I track some change in git-blame and end up with a patch doing something else and changing things by the way. In such case neither the commit name nor the description tells you *why*.
id: I'm simply refactoring code since anyway i need to add a lot of infra when adding the pfcp side.
This is just moving `testcasename()` from within the function to the caller. Does the PFCP related logic require to pass custom `id` here? I don't think so.