Question 3 was about test-sets/suites that you already mentioned thanks! :-)
Yes some simple existing ostest would be great as poc so we can compare :-) I can see cmocka framework already present in the nuttx-apps how would unity relate to that is it something different or similar? :-) https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/tree/master/testing/cmocka Thanks! :-) Tomek -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info On Sun, Dec 21, 2025 at 9:14 PM Matteo Golin <[email protected]> wrote: > > 1. From my understanding, very stable. I also believe that we fix the > version in NuttX so we'd be in control when/if we upgrade the version used. > > 2. Yes, it has PASS/FAIL for certain. I'm not sure about SKIP, but I can > check that. I also seem to remember a feature where you can choose to run > single tests, suites or all test cases with names matching a certain > pattern, but don't quote me on that. I will refer back to their docs and > send an update here for those questions. > > 3. Can you clarify what you mean? > > I could definitely make a proof of concept to demonstrate first. Would you > suggest just a dummy application with fake tests, or creating a new demo > app where a few test cases from OS test are adapted to use Unity? > > Matteo > > On Sun, Dec 21, 2025, 3:06 PM Tomek CEDRO <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Would it be possible to create some proof-of-concept to show how it > > would look and work? :-) > > > > -- > > CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info > > > > On Sun, Dec 21, 2025 at 8:58 PM Tomek CEDRO <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > 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 > >
