Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] kunit: Add KUnit memory block assertions to the example_all_expect_macros_test

[Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>]

On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 2:26 PM Maíra Canal <mairacanal@riseup.net> wrote:
>
> Increament the example_all_expect_macros_test with the

nit: typo ("Increment")
But "Augment" would be a bit more idiomatic here

Sorry I didn't catch this one in v1.

> KUNIT_EXPECT_MEMEQ and KUNIT_EXPECT_MEMNEQ macros by creating a test
> with memory block assertions.
>
> Signed-off-by: Maíra Canal <mairacanal@riseup.net>

Reviewed-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>

Thanks!
Just a couple very small nits (one above, one below).

> ---
> - Change the macro KUNIT_EXPECT_ARREQ to KUNIT_EXPECT_MEMEQ, in order to make
> it easier for users to infer the right size unit (Daniel Latypov).
> - Replace a constant number of array elements for ARRAY_SIZE() (André Almeida).
> - Rename "array" and "expected" variables to "array1" and "array2" (Daniel Latypov).
> ---
>  lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c | 7 +++++++
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c b/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c
> index f8fe582c9e36..8a9b0eeb1934 100644
> --- a/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c
> +++ b/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c
> @@ -86,6 +86,9 @@ static void example_mark_skipped_test(struct kunit *test)
>   */
>  static void example_all_expect_macros_test(struct kunit *test)
>  {
> +       const u32 array1[] = { 0x0F, 0xFF };
> +       const u32 array2[] = { 0x1F, 0xFF };
> +
>         /* Boolean assertions */
>         KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, true);
>         KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, false);
> @@ -109,6 +112,10 @@ static void example_all_expect_macros_test(struct kunit *test)
>         KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, "hi", "hi");
>         KUNIT_EXPECT_STRNEQ(test, "hi", "bye");
>
> +       /* Memory block assertions */
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_MEMEQ(test, array1, array1, sizeof(u32) * ARRAY_SIZE(array1));
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_MEMNEQ(test, array1, array2, sizeof(u32) * ARRAY_SIZE(array1));

Note: the following would be equivalent
  KUNIT_EXPECT_MEMEQ(test, array1, array1, sizeof(array1));
  KUNIT_EXPECT_MEMNEQ(test, array1, array2, sizeof(array1));
I think now we've dropped the use of "array equal", sizeof() is also
generally more appropriate.

We could also optionally prefix these with
  KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, sizeof(array1), sizeof(array2));
if we want to be extra paranoid here, but I don't think that's really necessary.