replicated effort in bluetooth.txt

[Jeff Lane ]

in bluetooth.txt the two test cases, bluetooth-detect and bluetooth-detect-output are identical.

bluetooth-detect-output is run via shell where bluetooth-detect is run manually simply to get some bluetooth data into the logs.

It would be better to replace both with a single test that also logs the data discovered.

[Ara Pulido (ara)]

Moving it to checkbox

[Brendan Donegan (brendan-donegan)]

Is the decision here then to make this test fully automated? I think it's confusing anyway for the user to be asking them about Bluetooth addresses so I think it's better as just a shell test, and the testing of Bluetooth should be done in a more functional test (sending a file for example)

[Daniel Manrique (roadmr)]

As is neither of those tests ask the user anymore, maybe one of them could be removed? They seem almost the same to me, except that bluetooth/detect will fail if there's no bluetooth address, while bluetooth/detect-output just outputs the same information to a text file.

Just remember that we need to let the OEM QA folks know about test removals, in case it might impact them.