Sounds great Linguini :-) 1. How stable is the API of that Unity framework? Can this impact self-containment or long term self compatibility problems?
2. Would that allow marking status of each step like FAIL, PASS, SKIP, ERROR? We miss that now, only errors are reported but 3. Can this enable test sets? Thanks! :-) Tomek -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info On Sun, Dec 21, 2025 at 8:38 PM Matteo Golin <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > I wanted to get some feedback on my proposal for re-factor of OS test: > https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/issues/3258 > > Since it's the holidays and I have some time on my hands, I figured that OS > test could use some improvements, especially > since it is the primary test used to check for regressions/correct > functionality of kernel logic on NuttX. > > My proposal basically aims to use the Unity test framework to organize all of > the existing tests in OS test so that > there is a logical code structure, and also logical console output which > makes it much clearer to tell if a test has > passed/failed. The goal is that a) this should make reviewing test results > much easier in PRs and b) the improved code > readability/extendability should make it easier for contributors to identify > gaps in the testing and also add their own > suggested tests. > > I have used the Unity support on NuttX for embedded testing for rocketry and > really enjoyed it; I think it would be a > huge improvement for NuttX. > > If this refactor is accepted by the community, once it is done I plan on > completing more documentation for the OS test > on the NuttX website. There is currently a lack of information about all of > the test suites that exist for the OS and > what exactly is being verified. > > Please let me know what you think! > > -- > Matteo Golin
