Does this mean that we need to revisit this behavior in UT_ADD_TEST()?

I just closed the issue in OSAL as "wontfix" with the recommendation to avoid the pattern of adding tests from within other tests. I'd think this is enough (just don't do it). It is a result of developing the related tests on an older OSAL, then being surprised they no longer run. Could update things in ut_assert such that this could work (or at least reject the request), but not sure if it's worth the effort.

Can you link that osal issue?

I just closed the issue in OSAL as "wontfix" with the recommendation to avoid the pattern of adding tests from within other tests. I'd think this is enough (just don't do it). It is a result of developing the related tests on an older OSAL, then being surprised they no longer run. Could update things in ut_assert such that this could work (or at least reject the request), but not sure if it's worth the effort.

Just looking at the code we might want to add some comments for why some of these don't follow the semantic pattern. Since I can't tell from a quick glance why some of these use UT_ADD_TEST and others don't

    UT_ADD_TEST(Test_MSG_Init);
    UT_ADD_TEST(Test_MSG_CCSDSPri);
    Test_MSG_CCSDSPri();
    UT_ADD_TEST(Test_MSG_CCSDSExt);
    Test_MSG_CCSDSExt();
    UT_ADD_TEST(Test_MSG_MsgId_Shared);
    Test_MSG_MsgId_Shared();
    UT_ADD_TEST(Test_MSG_MsgId);
    UT_ADD_TEST(Test_MSG_MsgId);

Related to nasa/osal#577. Individual tests are added w/ the UT_ADD_TEST call. Some tests are grouped at a lower level (Test_MSG_CCSDSExt is a group of tests), and those functions are called directly. Same pattern is used in sb:

I just closed the issue in OSAL as "wontfix" with the recommendation to avoid the pattern of adding tests from within other tests. I'd think this is enough (just don't do it). It is a result of developing the related tests on an older OSAL, then being surprised they no longer run. Could update things in ut_assert such that this could work (or at least reject the request), but not sure if it's worth the effort.

I opened #841 to have a targeted discussion about it.