Re: [myhdl-list] Pythonic Test frameworks

[Christopher F. <chr...@gm...>]

On 11/7/2011 3:50 PM, Uri Nix wrote:
> On 7 November 2011 08:30, Christopher Felton<chr...@gm...>  wrote:
>
>> Looking for some opinions on methods to make my testbenches more
>> Pythonic.  I have been humbled more often than not with my Python
>> programming skills, or lack there of (http://bit.ly/uQeRGm).  And my
>> testbenches seem to be old-school version of my Verilog/VHDL equivalent
>> testbences.  Looking to move from a testbench to a test framework.
>>
>> Frequently I will create a single testbench and have a bunch of
>> testcases in the testbench.  In some cases I will create multiple
>> (different) forms in test_ functions to use with py.test.
>>
>> But too often, majority of my test cases are in this single testbench.
>> What I would like to do is leverage the py.test framework but only
>> define connections, models, etc *once*.  Using the USB interface project
>> (USBP, http://bit.ly/sPEMC1) as an example I used something like the
>> following.
>>
>> ~~~ [Example Code] ~~~
>> class BaseSim()
>>
>>     def __init__(self, ...):
>>        # all top-level signal definitions, dut instance and interface
>>        # model instances
>>        ...
>>
>>    def GetGens():
>>        # return all the generators for
>>
>> def test_case1():
>>     bs = BaseSim()
>>
>>     @instance
>>     def tb_stimulus():
>>        yield bs.WriteRegister(0x00, 42)
>>        rval = [0]
>>        yield bs.ReadRegister(0x00, val)
>>        assert rval[0] == 42
>>        raise StopSimulation
>>
>>     Simulation((tb_stimulus, bs.GetGens())).run()
>>
>> def test_case2():
>>     bs = BaseSim()
>>
>>     @instance
>>     def tb_stimulus
>>        bs.someSignal.next = True
>>        yield delay(3)
>>        bs.someSignal.next = False
>>        # check some condition
>>        raise StopSimulation
>>
>>    Simulation((tb_stimulus, bs.GetGens())).run()
>>
>> ~~~ [End Example Code]~~~
>>
>> Other methods that are more flexible?  Is it worth it to add the
>> instantiations and connection signals to a class or just in a module?
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> RSA(R) Conference 2012
>> Save $700 by Nov 18
>> Register now
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1
>> _______________________________________________
>> myhdl-list mailing list
>> myh...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/myhdl-list
>>
>
> Hi Chris,
>
>    I find the standard lib unittest flexible enough, allowing something like
> the example below.
>    Any special reason for using py.test?

No special reason for the py.test.  I guess I have used py.test because 
you simply create test_ functions and use asserts.  And I have not use 
the unittest as much.  You pointed out the piece I think I was looking 
for.  The idea of a setup!  This is where all the connections etc can be 
defined and defined only once (thanks for the code example).

Searching, py.test has a similar mechanism.  You need to define all the 
test_ functions/methods in a class and use the "setup_method" which is 
equivalent to the setUp in the unittest.

Thanks!
Chris