raiden00pl commented on issue #17721:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/issues/17721#issuecomment-3703951985

   What's more complicated, building and flashing 10 different configurations, 
or flashing one large configuration and running the applications one by one? I 
think the first option is much more complicated, time-consuming, and 
error-prone.
   
   You can run the same tests with a single configuration that enables multiple 
test apps, which saves time on compiling, cleaning, and flashing. We can run 
apps from NSH, so why not use this feature? This is exactly how the current 
`citest` works.
   Serious tests should also check the system state after the application is 
launched, which can be done with a simple 'ps' or 'free' commands. Just because 
a test application doesn't return an error doesn't mean it's working properly. 
   
   Regarding testing on small devices, I mentioned this earlier on mailing list 
– why use devices with low FLASH for testing at all. In most cases, you'll find 
chips in the same family but with more FLASH, and that should be the one used 
for testing. For testing purposes, we can just choose the most powerful chip 
from a given chip family and it should provide test coverage also for smaller 
chips, without worrying about available resources.
   
   > What solution can you see here @raiden00pl? It would be simpler to have 
specific configurations list for the CI build rather than making runtime 
testing a lot more complex? :-)
   
   Adding complexity to NuttX to make work easier when implementing a test tool 
doesn't seem like a good approach to me. The goal should be reducing complexity 
in NuttX, not in NXDART :) Besides, I don't agree that many separate 
applications simplify anything - it seems to me that it does quite the opposite.


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]

Reply via email to