On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 8:25 AM raiden00pl <raiden0...@gmail.com> wrote: > As mentioned earlier, testing all boards is pointless, especially since the > project > has very limited resources. Choosing a few boards that will allow us to > test as many > things as possible is the most optimal approach.
Quite the opposite :-) Testing few boards multiple times in the same by different people may be a bit of waste, but its more about anyone providing what they have at hand and I am sure different people from around the world will have different boards, more people more boards coverage, and we will verify different boards configuration in real world :-) This will provide redundancy to available tests, because some folks may be offline, on vacation, changing location, etc, what if they had boards that we need? Someone else will provide the results :-) This will verify existing boards configuration and potential issues that will lead to a fix. This will attract new people to NuttX just because they have spare unused hardware and some free time to play. This will attract new people to NuttX because people will have boards that are not yet supported so this may be a great motivator to learn NuttX hands-on :-) etc :-) > But first we should determine what things we want to test, not what boards. > Knowing what things we want to test, we can design test cases and possibly > use what is already available. Yes thus my previous questions in different email threads and I did put that question already on github issue, updated to: We need a building blocks for base / extended / specific / custom test scenarios. Base tests will be mandatory and cover all boards (i.e. nsh + help + ostest). Extended may include benchmarks, stress tests, will be optional (may not be possible on small platforms) but may provide additional results like performance improvement or degradation. Specific tests will be optional too and would cover arch / board specific tests. There must be a way to implement Custom scenarios for closed testing of custom hardware etc. > But e-mail and github don't seem to me to be a good tool for brainstorming > and ideas. Maybe Confluence pages would be better? I haven't used > Confluence > for a few years, I just hope it's not as slow as it used to be :) > > I can create a Confluence page and describe my ideas about testing, I have > some > thoughts about NuttX testing written somewhere in my private notes. Others > can do > the same. I like the idea but... :D .. this will be yet another platform to spread information.. and it never really helper in projects I was part of except these whole projects were fully and only conducted on Confluence :-) It seems it is already spread over many various emails and github issues. I think emails are good for discussions, while github is good for noting conclusions down. But if you like Confluence we may try it why not :-) > Email can be good for decision making and maybe gathering more feedback from > the community, but it's a shitty tool for more complex work. Or I'm too > young > to use it comfortably :P Over the years there were hundreds of platforms, their number is increasing, most of them are long no more, while email sill works, its small, still using letters, read it when you want, it wont disappear, your account will not be banned, easy to backup, and you have everything in one place :-) Thank you Raiden! All constructive criticism is welcome, this leads to even better solution :-) Tomek -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
