Re: [PATCH 2/3] kunit: add KUnit array assertions to the example_all_expect_macros_test

From: "André Almeida" <andrealmeid@riseup.net>
To: "Maíra Canal" <mairacanal@riseup.net>
Cc: melissa.srw@gmail.com, daniel@ffwll.ch, javierm@redhat.com,
	siqueirajordao@riseup.net, Isabella Basso <isabbasso@riseup.net>,
	jose.exposito89@gmail.com, magalilemes00@gmail.com,
	tales.aparecida@gmail.com, davidgow@google.com,
	davem@davemloft.net, Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>,
	linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, airlied@linux.ie, kuba@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] kunit: add KUnit array assertions to the example_all_expect_macros_test
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2022 13:19:41 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5c9038fd-a247-d0d3-841c-ba1e606bc309@riseup.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220802161206.228707-3-mairacanal@riseup.net>

Às 13:12 de 02/08/22, Maíra Canal escreveu:
> Increament the example_all_expect_macros_test with the
> KUNIT_EXPECT_ARREQ and KUNIT_EXPECT_ARRNEQ macros by creating a test
> with array assertions.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Maíra Canal <mairacanal@riseup.net>
> ---
>  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..fc81a45d9cbc 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 array[] = { 0x0F, 0xFF };
> +	const u32 expected[] = { 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");
>  
> +	/* Array assertions */
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_ARREQ(test, expected, expected, 2);
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_ARRNEQ(test, array, expected, 2);

ARRAY_SIZE() is usually better than constants is this case.

> +
>  	/*
>  	 * There are also ASSERT variants of all of the above that abort test
>  	 * execution if they fail. Useful for memory allocations, etc.