Attention is currently required from: pespin. neels has posted comments on this change. ( https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-ttcn3-hacks/+/29420 )
Change subject: add upf/ to test osmo-upf ......................................................................
Patch Set 1:
(4 comments)
File upf/CPF_ConnectionHandler.ttcn:
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-ttcn3-hacks/+/29420/comment/3a5e0659_e0f40... PS1, Line 29: type component CPF_ConnHdlr extends StatsD_ConnHdlr {
Isn't this "CPF" an "SMF"? or is "CPF" some standaried name for a more generic thing?
CPF = Control Plane Function, the generic name for entities that send PFCP requests
File upf/UPF_Tests.ttcn:
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-ttcn3-hacks/+/29420/comment/eff935ee_b0f9e... PS1, Line 177: private function f_parse_gtp_action(out GTP_Action ret, charstring str) return boolean {
Do we really want to have tests based on VTY output?
it is the most concise way to verify that osmo-upf has the correct internal state
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-ttcn3-hacks/+/29420/comment/477b32f3_e1cfb... PS1, Line 627: private function f_ruleset_endecaps(GTP_Action gtp) return PFCP_Ruleset
"endecaps" shounds really confusing term.
encapsulation decapsulation
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-ttcn3-hacks/+/29420/comment/05aca102_538ab... PS1, Line 635: private function f_session_est(inout PFCP_session s, PFCP_Ruleset rules) runs on CPF_ConnHdlr {
***_establish? otherwise it's difficult to gasp whether it's a "established" checking function or ac […]
This is like f_chan_est() in BSC_Tests.
In PFCP, the central procedure is a PFCP Session Establishment.
A checking function should have {is,check,expect} in its name see e.g. f_vty_expect_session_active()