Reduce flash wear in flash map tests

[de-nordic]

Two commits:

• changing flash_area_get_sectors test to just verify layout against device layout, without doing read/write to device
• move SHA calculation to separate main file, so that only SHA is tested in SHA test scenarios and there are not basic tests doing writes/erases

[de-nordic]

Found one more erase to remove.

[tomi-font]

Commit nit: needles => needless

[de-nordic]

Commit nit: needles => needless

Fixed. I am so happy that this has not removed acks.

[tomi-font]

Fixed. I am so happy that this has not removed acks.

👍 As long as the diff remains the same or it's just a rebase without conflict the acks are not discarded.

[butok]

Hi @de-nordic

Just tried it on real HW.
After this PR, the test by default runs only 1 test, instead of 6. Is it intentional behavior?

It is cause by:

if(NOT CONFIG_FLASH_AREA_CHECK_INTEGRITY_PSA AND NOT CONFIG_FLASH_AREA_CHECK_INTEGRITY_MBEDTLS)
  FILE(GLOB app_sources src/main.c)
else()
  FILE(GLOB app_sources src/main_sha.c)
endif()

As CONFIG_FLASH_AREA_CHECK_INTEGRITY_PSA or CONFIG_FLASH_AREA_CHECK_INTEGRITY_MBEDTLS are set to Y, the cmake always takes main_sha.c which only runs one "test test_flash_area_check_int_sha256" test.

Log for west build -p always -b frdm_mcxn947/mcxn947/cpu0 tests/subsys/storage/flash_map.
After PR:

*** Booting Zephyr OS build v4.0.0-405-g2efc8598e39f ***
Running TESTSUITE flash_map_sha
===================================================================
START - test_flash_area_check_int_sha256
 PASS - test_flash_area_check_int_sha256 in 0.132 seconds
===================================================================
TESTSUITE flash_map_sha succeeded

------ TESTSUITE SUMMARY START ------

SUITE PASS - 100.00% [flash_map_sha]: pass = 1, fail = 0, skip = 0, total = 1 duration = 0.132 seconds
 - PASS - [flash_map_sha.test_flash_area_check_int_sha256] duration = 0.132 seconds

------ TESTSUITE SUMMARY END ------

===================================================================
PROJECT EXECUTION SUCCESSFUL

Before:

*** Booting Zephyr OS build v3.7.0-190-gf09ea4753feb ***
Running TESTSUITE flash_map
===================================================================
START - test_fixed_partition_node_macros
 PASS - test_fixed_partition_node_macros in 0.001 seconds
===================================================================
START - test_flash_area_check_int_sha256
 PASS - test_flash_area_check_int_sha256 in 0.127 seconds
===================================================================
START - test_flash_area_disabled_device
 PASS - test_flash_area_disabled_device in 0.001 seconds
===================================================================
START - test_flash_area_erase_and_flatten
Flash area info:
        pointer:         0x30002ea4
        offset:  1081344
        size:    1015808
 PASS - test_flash_area_erase_and_flatten in 7.912 seconds
===================================================================
START - test_flash_area_erased_val
 PASS - test_flash_area_erased_val in 0.001 seconds
===================================================================
START - test_flash_area_get_sectors
 PASS - test_flash_area_get_sectors in 0.886 seconds
===================================================================
TESTSUITE flash_map succeeded
 
------ TESTSUITE SUMMARY START ------
 
SUITE PASS - 100.00% [flash_map]: pass = 6, fail = 0, skip = 0, total = 6 duration = 8.928 seconds
 - PASS - [flash_map.test_fixed_partition_node_macros] duration = 0.001 seconds
 - PASS - [flash_map.test_flash_area_check_int_sha256] duration = 0.127 seconds
 - PASS - [flash_map.test_flash_area_disabled_device] duration = 0.001 seconds
 - PASS - [flash_map.test_flash_area_erase_and_flatten] duration = 7.912 seconds
 - PASS - [flash_map.test_flash_area_erased_val] duration = 0.001 seconds
 - PASS - [flash_map.test_flash_area_get_sectors] duration = 0.886 seconds
 
------ TESTSUITE SUMMARY END ------
 
===================================================================
PROJECT EXECUTION SUCCESSFUL

[de-nordic]

Hello @butok

I have intended to separately run SHA from other test to not wear down devices, where only sha is supposed to be tested, with unneeded write/erase operations.
The SHA tests is supposed to run once for mbedTLS and once for PSA, separately from other tests scenarios.

If that is somehow broken please report.

[butok]

Hello @butok

I have intended to separately run SHA from other test to not wear down devices, where only sha is supposed to be tested, with unneeded write/erase operations. The SHA tests is supposed to run once for mbedTLS and once for PSA, separately from other tests scenarios.

If that is somehow broken please report.

OK. But there is no a test configuration in testcase.yaml to run the main.c tests.

[de-nordic]

OK. But there is no a test configuration in testcase.yaml to run the main.c tests.

The default one does not run anymore?

[butok]

OK. But there is no a test configuration in testcase.yaml to run the main.c tests.

The default one does not run anymore?

The default behavior has been described. Otherwise I wouldn't have added the comment ;)
#81091 (comment)

[de-nordic]

OK. But there is no a test configuration in testcase.yaml to run the main.c tests.

The default one does not run anymore?

The default behavior has been described. Otherwise I wouldn't have added the comment ;) #81091 (comment)

I will take a look, but I am quite sure that I have 3 scenarios running each time a test the dir, which includes the base one and two separate sha tests.

[butok]

OK. But there is no a test configuration in testcase.yaml to run the main.c tests.

The default one does not run anymore?

The default behavior has been described. Otherwise I wouldn't have added the comment ;) #81091 (comment)

I will take a look, but I am quite sure that I have 3 scenarios running each time a test the dir, which includes the base one and two separate sha tests.

CONFIG_FLASH_AREA_CHECK_INTEGRITY_MBEDTLS is Y for the default case, for me.

[de-nordic]

The default behavior has been described. Otherwise I wouldn't have added the comment ;) #81091 (comment)

You are right, the fix is here: #81642