Closed eyip002 closed 1 year ago
oh ok I will change it and write then Benjamin to test it.
A little stale, but I found something. Point 9 is in an incorrect aspect at one point of the test for SWTbahn-Standard. On line 293 of swtbahn-standard/testsuite.c, it should not set point 9 to normal, as the route from seg40 to seg28 requires it to be in reverse orientation. This can be validated by looking at the routing table at https://github.com/uniba-swt/swtbahn-cli/blob/master/configurations/swtbahn-standard/interlocking_table.yml, route 187. Point 9 is in reverse there, and this route corresponds to the path being driven in this test.
Point 9 should be set to straight on line 301 instead.
The track coverage test case of libbidib/test/physical-test is incomplete for the SWTbahn Standard platform. For example, point 7 is only tested in the normal position.