Re: [PATCH v2 0/1] lib: Convert UUID runtime test to KUnit

From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
To: "André Almeida" <andrealmeid@collabora.com>
Cc: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>,
	"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
	<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
	KUnit Development <kunit-dev@googlegroups.com>,
	Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
	~lkcamp/patches@lists.sr.ht, nfraprado@collabora.com,
	leandro.ribeiro@collabora.com,
	Vitor Massaru Iha <vitor@massaru.org>,
	lucmaga@gmail.com, Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>,
	tales.aparecida@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/1] lib: Convert UUID runtime test to KUnit
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 16:52:24 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YMIZGG/zGk0wv42V@smile.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <63b2e441-f72d-6602-8680-defd96c21ac7@collabora.com>

On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 10:08:30AM -0300, André Almeida wrote:
> Às 09:39 de 10/06/21, Andy Shevchenko escreveu:
> > On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 2:54 PM David Gow <davidgow@google.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 5:14 PM Andy Shevchenko
> >> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 08:37:29PM -0300, André Almeida wrote:

...

> >>> It's not your fault but I think we need to defer this until KUnit gains support
> >>> of the run statistics. My guts telling me if we allow more and more conversions
> >>> like this the point will vanish and nobody will care.
> >>
> >> Did the test statistics patch we sent out before meet your expectations?
> >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-kselftest/patch/20201211072319.533803-1-davidgow@google.com/
> > 
> > Let me look at it at some point.
> > 
> >> If so, we can tidy it up and try to push it through straight away, we
> >> were just waiting for a review from someone who wanted the feature.
> >>
> >>
> >>> I like the code, but I can give my tag after KUnit prints some kind of this:
> >>>
> >>>  * This is how the current output looks like in success:
> >>>
> >>>    test_uuid: all 18 tests passed
> >>>
> >>>  * And when it fails:
> >>>
> >>>    test_uuid: failed 18 out of 18 tests
> >>>
> >>
> >> There are some small restrictions on the exact format KUnit can use
> >> for this if we want to continue to match the (K)TAP specification
> >> which is being adopted by kselftest. The patch linked above should
> >> give something formatted like:
> >>
> >> # test_uuid: (0 / 4) tests failed (0 / 12 test parameters)
> >>
> >> Would that work for you?
> > 
> > Can you decode it for me, please?
> > 
> > (Assuming that the above question arisen, perhaps some rephrasing is
> > needed. The idea that user should have clear understanding on how many
> > test cases were run and how many of them successfully finished or
> > failed. According to this thread I have to see the cumulative number
> > of 18 (either as one number or sum over test cases or how you call
> > them, I see 4 here).
> 
> In the original code, each `if(uuid/guid_parse/equal)` was considered as
> a test, so there were 4 tests for the 3 correct inputs and 2 tests for
> the 3 wrong inputs: 4 * 3 + 2 * 3 = 18 tests.
> 
> In my patch, I've organized in a different way, with 4 test cases:
> 
> - A test case for guid_parse and guid_equal for correct inputs
> - A test case for uuid_parse and uuid_equal for correct inputs
> - A test case for guid_parse for incorrect inputs
> - A test case for uuid_parse for incorrect inputs
> 
> So now we have 4 test cases, instead of the 6 test cases in the original
> code, because I've united _parse and _equal in a single test case. Given
> that each test has 3 parameters, this is why we see 12 test parameters
> and that's why there's no "18 tests" around anymore.

I see, is it mentioned in the commit message? If no, please add this
explanation.

Let's assume 12 now is the correct number, then the output can be somehow
rephrased, but again, it's not in your patch anyway :-)

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko