So far we do all channel reassignments by Handover Command. Since
osmo-bsc now supports rassignment of ongoing voice calls, do intra-cell
congestion resolution by Assignment Command.
In effect, add support for expecting an Assignment Command in
handover_test, and expect assignments instead of handovers for
intra-cell congestion resolution test cases.
Related: SYS#5330 OS#3277
Change-Id: Id56a890106b93fcee67ac9401b890e7b63bba421
So far, the test only works because osmo-bsc fails to notice that
occupying the dynamic TS 1 as TCH/F does, overall, not free a TCH/H, but
reduces available TCH/H from 5 to 4 (one TCH/H freed, but two TCH/H lost
from occupying a dynamic TS). An upcoming patch will make osmo-bsc
sensitive for these cross effects between TCH/F and TCH/H when dynamic
timeslots are involved, hence this test needs to be stabilized.
By using a static TCH/F for TS 1 instead of a dynamic timeslot, the dyn
TS cross effect does not occur and this test actually makes sense.
Change-Id: I492ea095cf3e3c3fd186c889166c4ed93ab3a007
With 'set-ts-use', it is convenient to build a scenario of lchan usage,
but still inconvenient to send measurement reports to all lchans.
I need this for testing congestion-check, because each lchan needs to
have at least one measurement report, or congestion check is skipped.
Example:
set-ts-use trx 0 0 states * TCH/F TCH/F - - TCH/HH TCH/HH TCH/H-
meas-rep lchan * * * * rxlev 10 rxqual 0 ta 0
This patch adds the '*' for the lchan arguments, usually being bts idx,
trx idx, timeslot idx and subslot idx.
Use lchan wildcards at the appropriate places to shorten some tests.
Change-Id: I441f92348508d45e1069a3dfa1ff3842dbba97d6
Fix flaws in picking a candidate for congestion resolution, shown in
recently added tests.
- For TCH/H->TCH/F upgrading, do not favor moving to a weaker neighbor
cell.
- When comparing dynamic timeslots on the same cell, favor a dynamic
timeslot that frees an entire dyn TS even though the target rxlev
differs.
Do not separate the passes for inter-cell and intra-cell candidates:
before, the inter-cell pass would already pick a candidate and start
handover, even though the subsequent intra-cell pass would have revealed
a better candidate. Join the intra-cell considerations into
pick_better_lchan_to_move().
The intra-cell pass was separate, because it would find the *weakest*
current rxlev, to give a TCH/H to TCH/F upgrade to the currently weakest
lchan.
Instead of the separate pass for weakest rxlev, in addition to the
target cell's rxlev, also consider the rxlev *change* in
pick_better_lchan_to_move(): For candidates that do not change the rxlev
(usually those that stay in the same cell) and that upgrade to TCH/F,
favor a candidate with weaker current rxlev.
Completely revisit the conditions in pick_better_lchan_to_move() to
yield the desired prioritization of candidate preferences.
In three handover tests, remove the "FAIL" comments and adjust to now
expect the actually desired behavior.
Related: SYS#5032
Change-Id: I2704899c85c35dfd4eba43468452483f40016ca2
In handover decision 2, choosing an lchan to move so far takes into
account only the absolute current rxlev, and it fails to look at the
*difference* in rxlev between source and target cell.
My recent feature to favor freeing half-used TCH/H does in fact not work
well. The main reason why the test for that feature passes is that all
lchans in the test get identical measurements -- which is unrealistic.
A test with differing ratings uncovers the flaw in comparing intra-cell
candidates.
Related: SYS#5032
Change-Id: Iabce1ab44b496833c19d999fc3f2903d835c357f
The meaningful names expose that some of those tests are apparently
quite similar.
With names like this it is far easier to see whether a specific scenario
is already tested or not, and find a test when looking for a specific
scenario.
Change-Id: I6f6d65d818fd1265e8ff94a2e0afba6392c50eb9
Neels Hofmeyr