Attention is currently required from: neels. pespin 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:

(6 comments)

File upf/CPF_ConnectionHandler.ttcn:

https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-ttcn3-hacks/+/29420/comment/048ac7dd_76da8... 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?

https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-ttcn3-hacks/+/29420/comment/cc786187_c2566... PS1, Line 96: //connect(self:PFCP_PROC, vc_PFCP:CLIENT_PROC); this can be dropped?

File upf/UPF_Tests.ttcn:

https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-ttcn3-hacks/+/29420/comment/86a2f5d1_3a6f7... 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?

https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-ttcn3-hacks/+/29420/comment/469cdd88_868c0... PS1, Line 627: private function f_ruleset_endecaps(GTP_Action gtp) return PFCP_Ruleset "endecaps" shounds really confusing term.

https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-ttcn3-hacks/+/29420/comment/ac47b1b5_d7677... 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 actually doing the establishment.

File upf/expected-results.xml:

https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/osmo-ttcn3-hacks/+/29420/comment/cac8171e_e4dfe... PS1, Line 2: <testsuite name='HNB_Tests' tests='0' failures='0' errors='0' skipped='0' inconc='0' time='MASKED'> UPF_Tests?