LTS being the Long-Term-Stable release of NuttX? I'm starting to think that it would be best to create new suite of tests using Unity, using what's in OS Test as a basis and then expanding it further. Greg has pointed out that OS test is not intended to be a complete test, so maybe a more solid testing framework base in a new form would be in order. At that point it would also be good to document and educate users about other test options, since OS test is a current favourite for showing PRs haven't broken anything. Maybe that's not the best choice anymore with this information.
I don't want to re-invent the wheel of what's already in `testsuite`, but I think Unity might end up being lighter-weight in the long run? And it is also not a Xiaomi owned/maintained framework so it may receive better external support (i.e. more users rely on it?). I tried to compile the sim:citest configuration to run the testsuite example and see what it was like, but I was met with a long list of C++ compilation errors that I'd rather not deal with. There also seems to be zero docs about it or cmocka in our NuttX docs at the moment. What do you think? Start a Unity test suite, add some switches to choose which test cases get compiled into the binary, open for extensions by users who know more about different subsystems? This way we can keep OS test how it is for a quick, low-resource sanity check of "board bringup" while having a dedicated testing application for patches? Someone changing file system stuff can just compile to include file system test cases and run that suite only as proof that their PR works. The output is really easy to glance at to determine pass/fail results. Anyways, here's my draft demonstrating how Unity works with the FPU test suite from OS test: https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/pull/3259 Matteo On Sun, Dec 21, 2025 at 7:13 PM Tomek CEDRO <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 1:02 AM Gregory Nutt <[email protected]> wrote: > > (..) > > Starting with bits and pieces of something like the LTS might make more > > sense other than its licensing problems. Since it would never be > > included in a distributed binary, the licensing really should not matter > > much in practice. > > Unless its GPL and some company would like to have their own internal > bits and pieces.. luckily its MIT and the whole thing is open-source > anyways :-) > > Yes we had many discussions about the LTS and this could be great start! > :-) > > -- > CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info >
