JianyuWang0623 commented on PR #19984:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/19984#issuecomment-5479179114

   The `sim:citest` config in this PR sets `CONFIG_INIT_ENTRYPOINT=init_main` 
(nxinit), but the external NTFC test suite that the `Linux (sim-01)` CI job 
runs (`apache/nuttx-ntfc-testing`, `release-0.0.1` branch) hard-requires 
`CONFIG_INIT_ENTRYPOINT == "nsh_main"` in `ntfc.yaml`:
   
   ```yaml
   requirements:
     - ["CONFIG_DEBUG_SYMBOLS", True]
     - ["CONFIG_SYSTEM_NSH", True]
     - ["CONFIG_INIT_ENTRYPOINT", "nsh_main"]
   ```
   
   `ntfc`'s `_kv_validate()` does a strict scalar `!=` comparison against this 
value, so any config using `init_main` (including `sim:citest` after this PR) 
fails that requirement check before the actual test cases even run.
   
   **Fix**: apache/nuttx-ntfc-testing#6 drops the obsolete 
`CONFIG_INIT_ENTRYPOINT` requirement line entirely.
   
   **Why it's safe to drop**: the `Nuttx_System` NTFC suite (e.g. 
`arch/nsh/test_arch_nsh_integration.py`) only does `sendCommand(cmd, 
expected_output)`-style nsh prompt interaction checks; it never inspects the 
init task's name or PID, so it behaves identically whether nsh is the init task 
(`nsh_main`) or spawned as an nxinit service (`init_main`). The requirement 
predates nxinit and no longer reflects a real constraint. Both released `ntfc` 
versions (0.0.1/0.0.2) were checked — `_kv_validate` has no list/multi-value 
support, so relaxing the value to `["nsh_main","init_main"]` isn't viable; 
removing the line is the correct fix.
   
   Note: apache/nuttx-ntfc-testing#6 is open and marked ready for review; a 
full NTFC run under `init_main` as attached verification evidence is still 
pending. Once it merges into `release-0.0.1` (the branch the CI job actually 
clones), `sim:citest` here should pass the NTFC requirements check.
   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]

Reply via email to