bsc: verify TSC in RR HO Cmd of TC_ho_neighbor_config_*
Related: SYS#4895 OS#5244
Related: Iae20df4387c3d75752301bd5daeeea7508966393 (osmo-bsc)
Change-Id: I09cb07561a57527880b87147495619a3bbbceb3f
diff --git a/bsc/BSC_Tests.ttcn b/bsc/BSC_Tests.ttcn
index 04e895a..cc387f6 100644
--- a/bsc/BSC_Tests.ttcn
+++ b/bsc/BSC_Tests.ttcn
@@ -6267,7 +6267,8 @@
charstring log_descr,
charstring handover_vty_cmd,
boolean expect_handover,
- boolean is_inter_bsc_handover := false)
+ boolean is_inter_bsc_handover := false,
+ template uint3_t expect_target_tsc := ?)
runs on MSC_ConnHdlr
{
/* We're going to thwart any and all handover attempts, just be ready to handle (and ignore) handover target
@@ -6299,6 +6300,17 @@
log("Handover to new chan ", new_chan_nr, " on ARFCN ", arfcn);
log(l3.msgs.rrm.handoverCommand);
+ /* Verify correct TSC in handoverCommand */
+ var uint3_t got_tsc := rr_chan_desc_tsc(l3.msgs.rrm.handoverCommand.channelDescription2);
+ if (not match(got_tsc, expect_target_tsc)) {
+ setverdict(fail, "RR Handover Command: unexpected TSC in Channel Description: expected ",
+ expect_target_tsc, " got ", got_tsc);
+ mtc.stop;
+ } else {
+ log("handoverCommand: verified TSC = ", got_tsc, " (matches ",
+ expect_target_tsc, ")");
+ }
+
/* Need to register for new lchan on new BTS -- it's either bts 1 or bts 2. It doesn't really
* matter on which BTS it really is, we're not going to follow through an entire handover
* anyway. */
@@ -6407,7 +6419,7 @@
f_bts_0_cfg(BSCVTY, {"no neighbors"});
f_probe_for_handover("1.a", "HO to bts 1 works, implicitly listed as neighbor (legacy behavior when none are configured)",
"handover any to arfcn 871 bsic 11",
- true);
+ true, expect_target_tsc := BTS_TSC[1]);
f_probe_for_handover("1.b", "HO to unknown cell does not start",
"handover any to arfcn 13 bsic 39",
@@ -6419,7 +6431,7 @@
f_probe_for_handover("1.d", "HO to 871-11 still works (verify that this test properly cleans up)",
"handover any to arfcn 871 bsic 11",
- true);
+ true, expect_target_tsc := BTS_TSC[1]);
}
testcase TC_ho_neighbor_config_1() runs on test_CT {
var MSC_ConnHdlr vc_conn;
@@ -6475,7 +6487,7 @@
f_probe_for_handover("2.a", "HO to bts 1 works, explicitly listed as neighbor",
"handover any to arfcn 871 bsic 11",
- true);
+ true, expect_target_tsc := BTS_TSC[1]);
f_probe_for_handover("2.b", "HO to bts 2 doesn't work, not listed as neighbor",
"handover any to arfcn 871 bsic 12",
@@ -6528,7 +6540,7 @@
false);
f_probe_for_handover("3.b", "HO to bts 2 works, explicitly listed as neighbor; no ambiguity because bts 3 is not listed as neighbor",
"handover any to arfcn 871 bsic 12",
- true);
+ true, expect_target_tsc := BTS_TSC[2]);
}
testcase TC_ho_neighbor_config_3() runs on test_CT {
var MSC_ConnHdlr vc_conn;
@@ -6714,7 +6726,7 @@
f_probe_for_handover("7.a", "HO to 871-12 does HO to bts 2",
"handover any to arfcn 871 bsic 12",
- true);
+ true, expect_target_tsc := BTS_TSC[2]);
f_probe_for_handover("7.b", "HO to 123-45 triggers inter-BSC HO",
"handover any to arfcn 123 bsic 45",
true, true);