# 1. Stage: Execute the CalliopEO.py script with nominal hex file
cp ${zipfile1} .
${cmd_calliope_script}
# Save return code
ret_code_1=$?
# 2. Stage: Execute the CalliopEO.py script with corrupted zip file
cp ${zipfile2} .
${cmd_calliope_script}
# Save return code
ret_code_2=$?
# 3. Stage: Execute the CalliopEO.py script again with nominal zip file
cp ${zipfile3} .
${cmd_calliope_script}
# Save return code
ret_code_3=$?
That way the python script runs three times.
In a real world scenario we might have 10 .zip files each containing 5 .hex files uploaded at once. Maybe on of them is corrupted and 9 are fine. Then the python script runs one time and we want to be sure, that the script does not stop after it reaches the corrupted zip file.
So I feel like that might result in more stating tests:
I wonder if we should combine the test cases.
The actuall aproach is like this:
That way the python script runs three times. In a real world scenario we might have 10 .zip files each containing 5 .hex files uploaded at once. Maybe on of them is corrupted and 9 are fine. Then the python script runs one time and we want to be sure, that the script does not stop after it reaches the corrupted zip file.
So I feel like that might result in more stating tests:
…
The same applys to test 05 corrupted hex and 07 transm timeout.