feat(ThirdParty): Unity unit test #1033
Conversation
EricB-ADI
added
enhancement
github-actions
bot
added
MAX32655
|
Hey @Jake-Carter , I want to integrate unity into our SDK so we can have, and offer a unit test framework. I have it working ok, but it would benefit a lot more if we can integrate it better into the build system. I updated the libs.mk to include the lib. You can run the tests on target, but it is definitely meant to be ran on the PC. Looking for some pointers or help trying to integrate this better. |
|
/clang-format-run |
Sounds good, I'll take a look |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@EricB-ADI seems easy enough to integrate. Some comments/questions below. Looks like we may need to just assign some custom printing configuration macros to our printf/UART drivers
Examples/MAX32655/Unity_Test/main.c
Outdated
| printf("Hello World!\n"); | ||
|
|
||
| // This still works but gets stuck with no output on failures | ||
| TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL(7, simple_add(3, 4)); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We may need to customize the output functions (see https://github.com/ThrowTheSwitch/Unity/blob/master/docs/UnityConfigurationGuide.md#toolset-customization)
Examples/MAX32655/Unity_Test/main.c
Outdated
|
|
||
| extern uint8_t simple_add(uint8_t x, uint8_t y); | ||
| // ***************************************************************************** | ||
| int main(void) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do you think we should follow the general recommendations for the top-level test structure? (https://github.com/ThrowTheSwitch/Unity/blob/master/docs/UnityGettingStartedGuide.md#how-to-create-a-test-file)
i.e.
int main(void) {
UNITY_BEGIN();
RUN_TEST(...);
// ...
return UNITY_END();
}|
|
||
| TARGET_OUT=testbench | ||
| UNITY_DIR=$(LIBS_DIR)/Unity | ||
| TEST_SRC=$(UNITY_DIR)/src/unity.c |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The following could probably be handled inside the unity-specific section of unity.mk
UNITY_DIR=$(LIBS_DIR)/Unity
TEST_SRC=$(UNITY_DIR)/src/unity.c
TEST_INC += -I$(LIBS_DIR)/Unity/src|
|
||
| TEST_INC += -I$(LIBS_DIR)/Unity/src | ||
|
|
||
| unit: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Might be better to just add to SRCS/IPATH/VPATH instead of defining a custom unit target recipe.
Is the motivation to isolate the unit test from the rest of our compiler flags/build?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It doesn't matter if they run the unit test on the MCU, but if it uses the same build flags, it will contain the mmcu flag and other arm specific stuff, so you will get gcc errors when targeting your unit test for x86
| } | ||
|
|
||
| /*=======MAIN=====*/ | ||
| int main(void) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see this here now... so should we remove our usual main.c file and just run this instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The flow of running unity while developing is basically when you run make, it builds the project for the target and runs the unit test on the PC so you can quickly test non hardware dependent features. Of course you can test hardware too on target with it, but typically you mock any platform specific stuff just to test the top level.
| LIB_UNITY ?= 0 | ||
| ifeq ($(LIB_UNITY), 1) | ||
| LIB_UNITY_DIR ?= $(LIBS_DIR)/Unity | ||
| include $(LIB_UNITY_DIR)/unity.mk |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Have you implemented this yet? Would be a good place to manage the central stuff
| TEST_CFLAGS += -Wno-unknown-pragmas | ||
| TEST_CFLAGS += -Wstrict-prototypes | ||
| TEST_CFLAGS += -Wundef | ||
| TEST_CFLAGS += -Wold-style-definition |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we strictly need this? Related to the question about the custom target recipe
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No. Inside the framework is an examples folder, which I originally pulled from. This was just what came with the example. Left it there for now, but it should use as much of the same flags the normal build uses.
|
Just realized it got added as a submodule and none of the folders are there. Yes I did make a unity.mk. |
|
This should make more sense now. |
|
/clang-format-run |
github-actions
bot
added
MAX32520
github-actions
bot
added
Workflow
|
/clang-format-run |
|
@Jake-Carter Everything is working as expected. I reran MSDKGen to update all the makefiles. |
@EricB-ADI can you revert it and just update a single project? My browser crashes now when I try to view the diff |
github-actions
bot
removed
MAX32520
done |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Did you test the example in Keil and IAR (judging by the example's project files)?
If not, I'd recommend deleting those files from the example because it's still TBD how we'll handle IAR and Keil with the SDK. I don't know if we'll continue using the old setup we used to have. Code delivery and setting up a system to sync the codebase for IAR/Keil with GitHub hasn't been officially decided yet (mainly due to a lack of resources).
Also, don't forget to update the boards' examples.txt with the new example.
|
Removed Unity from the linter. |
Pull Request Template
Description