I don't think Unity should take much extra memory to run, since most of the test infrastructure is very simple assertions/console output macros, but I agree that I will need to compare the memory usage. I don't want to compromise any flexibility of OS test since it is meant to run on all of the boards (and new, low memory devices for board port tests).
Matteo On Sun, Dec 21, 2025, 4:32 PM Alan C. Assis <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Matteo, > that is a great idea! This is something that I always missed on ostest: > just say which test it is executing and if it passed or failed (just like > the CONFIG_TESTING_LTP does). > > Although initially using Unity seems cool, I think it could require more > memory to get it running inside a microcontroller with few KBs of RAM/Flash > where ostest currently can run (search for ostest board profile inside > boards to see some of those). > > Maybe since we know the expected result, we just need to include a simple > comparison test and print the result as FAILED or PASSED (of course, some > tests are more complex). > > Or maybe Unity will not require much memory as I'm thinking. So, it is > important to get these numbers to make the right decision. > > BR, > > Alan > > On Sun, Dec 21, 2025 at 4:38 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 > > >
