I would put those on `testing/net/tcp`, since it looks like similar to a unit test.
Then, for other tests, we can have an "integration" directory if they use multiple OS features. Seems like we need a general overview of the tests available for a more informed opinion. ________________________________ From: Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info> Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2025 9:28 PM To: dev@nuttx.apache.org <dev@nuttx.apache.org> Subject: Re: nuttx-apps/testing reorganization [External: This email originated outside Espressif] On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 4:51 PM Filipe Cavalcanti wrote: > Hi there! > I think having tests under `testing/` is good if it mirrors the directory > structure of the OS. > `testing/sched/clock`: sched/clock specific tests > `testing/mm/iob`: mm/IOB specific tests > `testing/sched/signal`: signal tests > Seems the PR you mentioned goes towards this idea, but I understand some > tests do not exactly fit into the structure as we want. > For those cases, I'm sure some structure could be developed. Yes I also proposed that but not all cases seem to fit and the PR author proposes more feature focused nomenclature in that case which is okay I think? :-) > Regarding item 2, I don't see why we would need to put `cmocka` on the path. > In the PR you showed (2935), `test_<feature>.c` looks clean. Yes, the question is how should we name the directory where those tests are located? basic? basic_tests? generic? generic_tests? standard? standard_tests? cmocka? Any hints welcome :-) Thanks Filipe :-) -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
