Attention is currently required from: pespin.

View Change

4 comments:

• File upf/CPF_ConnectionHandler.ttcn:

  • Patch Set #1, 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:

  • Patch Set #1, 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

  • Patch Set #1, Line 627: private function f_ruleset_endecaps(GTP_Action gtp) return PFCP_Ruleset

    "endecaps" shounds really confusing term.

    encapsulation decapsulation

  • Patch Set #1, 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()

To view, visit change 29420. To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit settings.