Yes, I believe so. It is currently integrated in nuttx-apps and it doesn't look like it depends on any of the license switches.
Matteo On Sun, Dec 21, 2025 at 6:07 PM Tomek CEDRO <[email protected]> wrote: > Cmocka tests seems to be mostly used and developed by Xiaomi. Maybe > they use it internally only for runtime tests aisde from ostest? No > clue too, I haven't played that yet :-) > > Last question about Unity - it uses MIT license so there is no > conflict with Apache and we can include that code safely in the NuttX > Apps code base without special switches? > > -- > CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info > > On Sun, Dec 21, 2025 at 11:44 PM Matteo Golin <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > It also appears that "testsuites" ( > > > https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/tree/c4da1b5b9f3c6ab24014f919320bad8a5ee845d7/testing/testsuites > ) > > uses cmocka. I've never actually seen these tests run for PRs but they > look > > quite comprehensive? Maybe it is better to be consistent and use cmocka > > instead of Unity, although I still think Unity is much more lightweight. > > > > How come we haven't added more to the testsuites? Such as the new hrtimer > > tests? Are these for something specific only? I might be out of the loop. > > > > Matteo > > > > On Sun, Dec 21, 2025 at 5:34 PM Matteo Golin <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Okay, after a limited time looking at the cmocka documentation > > > <https://api.cmocka.org/index.html#main-features> to compare it > against > > > Unity, I have determined the following: > > > > > > - cmocka is more geared towards mocking interfaces/C objects > > > - cmocka seems to be less light-weight, with a lot of abstractions for > > > mocking and the ability to output test results in a bunch of formats, > > > including XML and JUnit > > > > > > I think Unity is probably the framework to move forward with in this > case > > > since it's lighter-weight, and I don't think our test cases in OS test > > > would really benefit from the mocking features of cmocka. It seems more > > > geared towards a simplistic approach to unit testing, and I think it > would > > > also be more flexible. I agree though that whatever proof of concept I > put > > > forward should have some memory usage comparison with writing the > test-case > > > without the Unity tools. If there is too significant overhead we might > need > > > a different solution. > > > > > > By the way, for anyone interested, the Unity framework has this basic > > > webpage with some information: https://www.throwtheswitch.org/unity > > > Most of their docs are on the GitHub page though: > > > https://github.com/ThrowTheSwitch/Unity > > > > > > Matteo > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 21, 2025 at 4:43 PM Matteo Golin <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> 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 > > >>> > > > >>> > > >> >
