On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 10:06 AM Brennan Ashton <bash...@brennanashton.com> wrote: > > On Tue, May 23, 2023, 5:05 AM Nathan Hartman <hartman.nat...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 6:12 AM Brennan Ashton > > <bash...@brennanashton.com> wrote: > > > I have also asked in the past about cutting down on the amount of configs > > > we have checked in to be something like > > > > > > board:nsh -- only nsh and somewhat small > > > board:jumbo -- nsh, plus as many features as can fit and are interesting > > in > > > the platform. > > > > > > For sim and some other targets it would make sense to have more targets, > > > but not for every board. > > > > > > The idea of "board:jumbo" is very similar to what I was saying > > earlier. Maybe it will allow us to test fewer boards in less time but > > still get better test coverage. I am in favor of *better* test > > coverage, not less test coverage!! > > > > In the past, we talked about having some tests in CI for each PR, and > > then a bigger nightly test that builds all boards/configs like Greg > > used to do before releases. I don't think that ever happened, but ASF > > has a build farm separate from GitHub that we might use, or we could > > request from INFRA a virtual machine to set up a complete environment. > > Maybe that's something to think about. > > > > > I'm not sure why we would need anything new? We can still run this in > GitHub actions, but generally I don't think we should be having PRs merge > that are not passing build tests. > > > As for more testing of system on boards, QEMU is great for some tests and > there is a thin framework that does some of that work that Xiang and others > have started. A few years ago I also gave a talk to see if there was > interest in working with the folks a renode.io. Their open source simulator > is what Zypher is using and at the time had minimal support, but check out > this awesome dashboard. > > https://zephyr-dashboard.renode.io/ > > > It would be really cool if we could join forces a bit and continue to build > off that effort and improve some of the emulation as needed (some work is > required).
Wow, that is cool! I must have missed it when you mentioned it previously. Yes, this is something the NuttX project should look into. I agree with the QEMU idea as well, for those who want to build a test/development setup they can run locally. Both of these ideas are very good and we should pursue them. If we do QEMU, we should document it, or script it, or both, so that other community members can reproduce it and run a test system locally. Personally I would like such a setup, and I am interested in helping to document it. Cheers, Nathan
