Chris, please confirm whether or not this is the same issue that I described in
PCR 6134 comment 1.

(In reply to comment #1)
> Chris, please confirm whether or not this is the same issue that I described in
> PCR 6134 comment 1.
> 

Not exactly the same, no.  The rationale fly-over for the checklist item you mentioned in PCR 6134 describes the need to consider "execution relationships that cannot be detected by the test procedure, e.g. ... schedule-before relationships".

It may not be possible for an undetected incorrectly configured schedule-before relationship to cause a false pass in this test case?  However, I felt that the information describing the necessary schedule-before relations of each test procedure [already present in the tck] would meet the intent of "documenting test dependencies that are not checked during test execution" if explicitly called out as registry dependencies.

CCB visited this PCR on 2009-10-15

CCB visited this PCR on 2010-02-03

CCB visited this PCR on 2010-02-25.

CCB 2 visited this PCR on  2010-03-31

CCB visited this PCR on 2010-05-11

CCB 2 visited this PCR on 2010-09-30.

CCB visited this PCR on 2010-12-17.

CCB visited this PCR on 2011-03-07

CCB visited this PCR on 2011-04-11

CCB2 visited this PCR on 2011-05-16

CCB visited this PCR on 2011-08-17

CCB 2 visited this PCR on 2011-11-04

CCB visited this PCR on 2012-01-31

CCB visited this PCR on 2012-05-15

CCB 2 visited this PCR on 2012-06-08

CCB visited this PCR on 2012-08-24

CCB visited this PCR on 2012-09-07

CCB visited this PCR on 2012-09-17

CCB visited this PCR on 2012-11-19

CCB visited this PCR on 2012-11-26

CCB visited this PCR on 2013-02-12

CCB visited this PCR on 2013-03-18

CCB visited this PCR on 2013-05-15

Karen, if this is already done or if this test needs to be changed for other
reasons for fourpeaks, then please consider this change, otherwise it is not
strictly required.

CCB visited this PCR on 2013-07-19

CCB visited this PCR on 2013-11-15

CCB 2 visited this PCR on 2014-05-20

CCB visited this PCR on 2014-07-14

CCB 2 visited this PCR on 2014-11-11

CCB visited this PCR on 2014-11-17

CCB visited this PCR on 2016-04-18

CCB visited this PCR on 2016-06-20

CCB visited this PCR on 2017-02-01-59501

CCB visited this PCR on 2017-04-18-59571

CCB visited this PCR on 2017-04-21-54338

CCB visited this PCR on 2017-05-18-71846

This will not be addressed for kernel 8.4.2.

CCB visited this PCR on 2017-06-28-69227

CCB visited this PCR on 2017-07-06-58325

CCB visited this PCR on 2021-03-26-57787

CCB visited this PCR on 2021-04-05-59141

CCB visited this PCR on 2023-08-14-64795

Ron, please assess this PCR to determine if a fix is required for Kismet, or if the PCR can be closed (OBE).  Thanks!

I concur with Comment #2:
...would meet the intent of "documenting test dependencies that are not checked during test execution"...

Therefore, I would suggest this PCR is closed as works for me.

CCB visited this PCR on 2023-09-29-66335

Created attachment 4749 [details]
tpk416 addition of checks for correct schedule-before relationships

I recommend assigning this PCR for next mainline release applying the attached patch to enable a cross check of the correct number of unique schedule-before relationships. There is a small risk of some required BSP driver needing a schedule-before relationship which could trigger a failure of the cross-checks; however, this risk is low and can be accounted for if ever required. In this case, prefer a false failure over a false pass.

CCB visited this PCR on 2024-04-04-71881

CCB visited this PCR on 2024-08-30-49739