New Contiki OS Network Regression Test Framework

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Contiki OS Network Regression Test Framework

Posted by Unknown on Wednesday December 12, 2012 @06:42AM from the tiny-tests dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Contiki, the open source operating system for the Internet of Things, just got a regression test framework ported over from Thingsquare Mist that allows the Contiki developers to test the entire system on 9 platforms, 4 CPU architectures, and 1021 network nodes, for every new commit."

13 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Internet of Things by kc67 · 2012-12-12 06:47 · Score: 1

Very descriptive term for an operating system. Ubuntu should be the open source operating system for the Purchasing of Things.
How is this news(tm)? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-12 07:04 · Score: 0

Looks like linkbait for some vaguely-defined project that would probably define itself as "disruptive." This isn't a release, an actual feature in the product, or even anything new in terms of test frameworks.
Pity they dropped the only architecture I was inte by marcovje · 2012-12-12 07:08 · Score: 2

Pity they dropped the only architecture I was interested in
Re:Pity they dropped the only architecture I was i by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-12 07:51 · Score: 0

http://contiki.cbm8bit.com/
Which arch?
Contiki is still around? by ickleberry · 2012-12-12 07:58 · Score: 1

I had the misfortune of having to use it last year on a tmote sky. Nearly every piece of hardware it supports is obsolete, also the API is incredibly poorly documented. Most of their documentation consists of functions listed with no description. Gah!!
1. Re:Contiki is still around? by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2012-12-12 21:46 · Score: 1
  
  Welcome to MSDN :)
  
  --
  Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
Why C? by angel'o'sphere · 2012-12-12 08:06 · Score: 0

I find it pretty weired that they use C instead of a well defined subset of C++ for a modern framework.
I really doubt that from an academic stanpoint the term framework even applies, it looks like a set of APIs and libraries to me. Or does the linux kernel quallify as a framework, too?
Anyway I don't use frameworks/libraries/languages that are neither oo nor functional, my time is me to valuable.

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
1. Re:Why C? by hakey · 2012-12-12 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  It's designed to run on microcontrollers with kilobytes of RAM. C++ and OO are possible, but C tends to fit better.
2. Re:Why C? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-12 11:37 · Score: 0
  
  I find it pretty weired that they use C instead of a well defined subset of C++ for a modern framework.
  
  There's nothing weird about using the one of the most common and portable programming languages. There are C compilers for virtually every CPU architecture, but usable C++ compilers are far more rare. A usable, portable subset of C++ would probably just be C with virtual functions and overloading. Not worth it.
  
  I really doubt that from an academic stanpoint the term framework even applies, it looks like a set of APIs and libraries to me. Or does the linux kernel quallify as a framework, too?
  
  Embedded operating systems often look like libraries. When you have less than 128KB of program space (if that) and no MMU, many of the boundaries normally seen between a desktop/server OS and program disappear. Embedded OSes are often statically linked to the programs that run on them because dynamic linking would be a waste of memory.
  
  Anyway I don't use frameworks/libraries/languages that are neither oo nor functional, my time is me to valuable.
  
  The best way to use your time is by using the right tool for the job. Just like how assembly or Fortran would be terrible for web development, using Perl or Ruby would also be terrible for a microcontroller. (Assuming you can even get them running!)
  
  I'm sure the Contiki developers also find their time to be valuable. That's why they didn't bother with a less-reliable-across-architectures OO language or a toy embedded functional language. With C they save time by having to do less work porting and debugging those ports. Contiki probably wouldn't be running on even half as many architectures if they used any other language.
3. Re:Why C? by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2012-12-12 21:48 · Score: 1
  
  Anyway I don't use frameworks/libraries/languages that are neither oo nor functional, my time is me to valuable.
  Not functional??? Have you ever even programmed in C?
  
  --
  Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
4. Re:Why C? by angel'o'sphere · 2012-12-13 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  Yes I have, and your question simply shows you don't know what "functional" means.
  Hint: go to wikipedia and look for "functional programming language", you won't find C there.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
5. Re:Why C? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 08:01 · Score: 0
  
  Wow English & computing diverge! So all those programming languages are pretty much procedural whereas C is pure functions no OO just functions but its not counted as a functional programming language! Which tards decide these matters?
Re:Pity they dropped the only architecture I was i by Trixter · 2012-12-12 10:21 · Score: 1

16-bit x86 :-(