On Thu, Aug 8, 2024, 06:02 Gregory Nutt <spudan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 8/7/2024 9:10 PM, yfliu2008 wrote: > > ... if we had "ostest" based smoke testing coverage in our CI, those > fake k230 issues can be prevented earlier. > > ostest would probably need some work to be useful in this case: ostest > would need some kind of standard reporting in each test so that we would > know when a test case passed or failed. > > Right now, many tests do not report any test results. That is because > they run relatively complex, multi-threaded scenarios that are not easy > to assess. You have to understand what the test is doing in order to > interpret the test output. Such tests would need to report failures in > a way that can be captured as a simple PASS or FAIL. >
how about new application citest dedicated just for that purpose ? it can reuse existing code parts from other places and by default just print out something easy to parse i.e: [TESTX.Y.Z] [OK] Brief test description. [TESTX.Y.Z][FA] Brief test description (error code). X.Y.Z could be code tree based test numbers i.e: X=1 for kernel Y=1 for IPC Z=1 as test number that does something configuration could include list of excluded tests and verbosity for instance when test fails do we want to see the output why (or just include error code in test brief). ? :-) -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info >
