Contest is easy to set up, easy to run, it's
getting contributors. I understand it's a commitment of a day or so to
figure out, but it's worth it in our experience. It's just not that
hard.
I believe starting down the python path is a bad start, and I'd rather
not make it.
It is, but that's the code proposed on the repo.
I asked you about using Contest in a setting that comes without client/server architecture, SQL database and a dedicated system under test. Any news on that end?
I realize "it's only 160 lines", now; but that's how these things
always start. They don't end well.
It's not a license for adding more of the same.
I consider it:
1. A signal that we care for testing our tools (as in: we like contributions that improve our test coverage).
2. A signal of encouragement towards Ricardo who haplessly ran into the trap of coreboot discouraging (ahem) python (we should document that!) while trying to improve the project's general posture.
As soon as you bring up an alternative path that's acceptable to the project at large, Ricardo offered to rewrite this specific test in whatever we'll use officially (I suppose there's a caveat of it being "within reason": don't get out your brainf*ck-based e2e testing framework!), and I hereby offer to be the rewriter-of-last-resort in case Ricardo is gone by then.
As is, Content looks like a solution for a _different_ problem. As soon as we can clear up that confusion, I'm all for using it, and the faster we get that done, the faster this python code is removed again.
Therefore I guess one could say that I also consider this change (and my proposal of merging it):
3. A rather blunt tool to get you to resolve the open questions regarding Contest ;-)
Patrick