All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: pvorel at suse.cz (Petr Vorel)
Subject: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Kselftest shell (or even C) API
Date: Sat,  6 Apr 2019 23:49:13 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190406214915.16914-1-pvorel@suse.cz> (raw)

Hi,

this is a draft trying to define some API in order to remove some
redundancy from kselftest shell scripts. Existing kselftest.h already
defines some sort of API for C, there is none for shell.

It's just a small example how things could be. Draft, not meant to be
really merged. But instead of defining shell library (with more useful
helpers), I'd rather adopt LTP shell [1] and C [2] API to kselftest.
LTP API [1] is more like a framework, easy to use with a lot of helpers
making tests 1) small, concentrating on the problem itself 2) have
unique output. API is well documented [3] [4], it's creator Cyril Hrubis
made it after years experience of handling (at the time) quite bad
quality LTP code.  Rewriting LTP tests to use this API improved tests a
lot (less buggy, easier to read).

Some examples of advantages of LTP API:
* SAFE_*() macros for C, which handles errors inside a library
* unified messages, unified test status, unified way to exit testing due
missing functionality, at the end of testing there is summary of passed,
failed and skipped tests
* many prepared functionality for both C and shell
* handling threads, parent-child synchronization
* setup and cleanup functions
* "flags" for defining requirements or certain functionality (need root, temporary
directory, ...)
* and many other

kselftest and LTP has a bit different goals and approach. Probably
not all of LTP API is needed atm, but I guess it's at least worth of
thinking to adopt it.

There are of course other options: reinvent a wheel or left kselftest
code in a state it is now (code quality varies, some of the code is
really messy, buggy, not even compile).

[1] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/blob/master/testcases/lib/tst_test.sh
[2] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/tree/master/lib
[3] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/wiki/Test-Writing-Guidelines#22-writing-a-test-in-c
[4] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/wiki/Test-Writing-Guidelines#23-writing-a-testcase-in-shell

Petr Vorel (2):
  selftests: Start shell API
  selftest/kexec: Use kselftest shell API

 .../selftests/kexec/kexec_common_lib.sh       | 74 +++++--------------
 .../selftests/kexec/test_kexec_file_load.sh   | 53 ++++++-------
 .../selftests/kexec/test_kexec_load.sh        | 20 ++---
 tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.sh          | 53 +++++++++++++
 4 files changed, 105 insertions(+), 95 deletions(-)
 mode change 100755 => 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kexec/kexec_common_lib.sh
 create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.sh

-- 
2.20.1

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: pvorel@suse.cz (Petr Vorel)
Subject: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Kselftest shell (or even C) API
Date: Sat,  6 Apr 2019 23:49:13 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190406214915.16914-1-pvorel@suse.cz> (raw)
Message-ID: <20190406214913.rBGFc-UfSm8W0bJwHCIZiNeFk85tq4o-4QFKKp15eK8@z> (raw)

Hi,

this is a draft trying to define some API in order to remove some
redundancy from kselftest shell scripts. Existing kselftest.h already
defines some sort of API for C, there is none for shell.

It's just a small example how things could be. Draft, not meant to be
really merged. But instead of defining shell library (with more useful
helpers), I'd rather adopt LTP shell [1] and C [2] API to kselftest.
LTP API [1] is more like a framework, easy to use with a lot of helpers
making tests 1) small, concentrating on the problem itself 2) have
unique output. API is well documented [3] [4], it's creator Cyril Hrubis
made it after years experience of handling (at the time) quite bad
quality LTP code.  Rewriting LTP tests to use this API improved tests a
lot (less buggy, easier to read).

Some examples of advantages of LTP API:
* SAFE_*() macros for C, which handles errors inside a library
* unified messages, unified test status, unified way to exit testing due
missing functionality, at the end of testing there is summary of passed,
failed and skipped tests
* many prepared functionality for both C and shell
* handling threads, parent-child synchronization
* setup and cleanup functions
* "flags" for defining requirements or certain functionality (need root, temporary
directory, ...)
* and many other

kselftest and LTP has a bit different goals and approach. Probably
not all of LTP API is needed atm, but I guess it's at least worth of
thinking to adopt it.

There are of course other options: reinvent a wheel or left kselftest
code in a state it is now (code quality varies, some of the code is
really messy, buggy, not even compile).

[1] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/blob/master/testcases/lib/tst_test.sh
[2] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/tree/master/lib
[3] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/wiki/Test-Writing-Guidelines#22-writing-a-test-in-c
[4] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/wiki/Test-Writing-Guidelines#23-writing-a-testcase-in-shell

Petr Vorel (2):
  selftests: Start shell API
  selftest/kexec: Use kselftest shell API

 .../selftests/kexec/kexec_common_lib.sh       | 74 +++++--------------
 .../selftests/kexec/test_kexec_file_load.sh   | 53 ++++++-------
 .../selftests/kexec/test_kexec_load.sh        | 20 ++---
 tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.sh          | 53 +++++++++++++
 4 files changed, 105 insertions(+), 95 deletions(-)
 mode change 100755 => 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kexec/kexec_common_lib.sh
 create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.sh

-- 
2.20.1

             reply	other threads:[~2019-04-06 21:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-04-06 21:49 pvorel [this message]
2019-04-06 21:49 ` Petr Vorel
2019-04-06 21:49 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] selftests: Start shell API pvorel
2019-04-06 21:49   ` Petr Vorel
2019-04-08 11:06   ` zohar
2019-04-08 11:06     ` Mimi Zohar
2019-04-08 12:22     ` pvorel
2019-04-08 12:22       ` Petr Vorel
2019-04-08 11:38   ` chrubis
2019-04-08 11:38     ` Cyril Hrubis
2019-04-08 13:07     ` pvorel
2019-04-08 13:07       ` Petr Vorel
2019-04-06 21:49 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] selftest/kexec: Use kselftest " pvorel
2019-04-06 21:49   ` Petr Vorel
2019-04-08 11:29   ` zohar
2019-04-08 11:29     ` Mimi Zohar
2019-04-08 11:43 ` [RFC PATCH 0/2] Kselftest shell (or even C) API chrubis
2019-04-08 11:43   ` Cyril Hrubis
2019-04-08 13:25   ` pvorel
2019-04-08 13:25     ` Petr Vorel
2019-04-08 12:14 ` zohar
2019-04-08 12:14   ` Mimi Zohar
2019-04-08 12:29   ` pvorel
2019-04-08 12:29     ` Petr Vorel

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20190406214915.16914-1-pvorel@suse.cz \
    --to=unknown@example.com \
    --subject='Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Kselftest shell (or even C) API' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.