All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: pvorel at suse.cz (Petr Vorel)
Subject: [RFC PATCH 1/2] selftests: Start shell API
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 15:07:50 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190408130750.GE6493@dell5510> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190408113841.GA2418@rei.lan>

Hi,

> > +ksft_pass()
> > +{
> > +	echo "[PASS] $TEST: $1"
> > +	exit $KSFT_PASS
> > +}
> > +
> > +ksft_fail()
> > +{
> > +	echo "[FAIL] $TEST: $1"
> > +	exit $KSFT_FAIL
> > +}

> I think that the main disadvantage here is that these functions call
> exit instead of storing the results which leads to a common pattern of
> passing the result up the function call chain which is prone to errors.

> What I have learned the hard way over the years is that the result
> reporting should be separated from the functions that exit the tests and
> that the test code should not be trusted with passing the overall test
> result at the end. I've seen too many cases where the actuall failure
> was ignored becaues the failure was lost on it's way to the main
> function.

> Another lesson is that tests shouldn't implement the main() function,
> that is something that the test library should do, which allows for
> resources to be listed in a declarative way instead of calling init
> funcitons at the start of the tests. Which means that in LTP you can say
> "mount at least 512MB device formatted with ext4 to this mount point"
> and all this handled in the test library before the actual test starts.

> As the last point this completely misses a cleanup callback support,
> i.e. function that is called to clean up if you need to exit in the
> middle of a test in a case of an error.

Agree with all mentioned. My patchset was mainly to bring the discussion.
Although library defining some general functions and constants to reduce
duplicity is itself a small improvement, kselftest deserves a proper API.
For both C and shell.

Kind regards,
Petr

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: pvorel@suse.cz (Petr Vorel)
Subject: [RFC PATCH 1/2] selftests: Start shell API
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 15:07:50 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190408130750.GE6493@dell5510> (raw)
Message-ID: <20190408130750.o88QGFp5qpvMhCWVXIPsKCynIK2Oss5UbQyQnSAvMg4@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190408113841.GA2418@rei.lan>

Hi,

> > +ksft_pass()
> > +{
> > +	echo "[PASS] $TEST: $1"
> > +	exit $KSFT_PASS
> > +}
> > +
> > +ksft_fail()
> > +{
> > +	echo "[FAIL] $TEST: $1"
> > +	exit $KSFT_FAIL
> > +}

> I think that the main disadvantage here is that these functions call
> exit instead of storing the results which leads to a common pattern of
> passing the result up the function call chain which is prone to errors.

> What I have learned the hard way over the years is that the result
> reporting should be separated from the functions that exit the tests and
> that the test code should not be trusted with passing the overall test
> result at the end. I've seen too many cases where the actuall failure
> was ignored becaues the failure was lost on it's way to the main
> function.

> Another lesson is that tests shouldn't implement the main() function,
> that is something that the test library should do, which allows for
> resources to be listed in a declarative way instead of calling init
> funcitons at the start of the tests. Which means that in LTP you can say
> "mount at least 512MB device formatted with ext4 to this mount point"
> and all this handled in the test library before the actual test starts.

> As the last point this completely misses a cleanup callback support,
> i.e. function that is called to clean up if you need to exit in the
> middle of a test in a case of an error.

Agree with all mentioned. My patchset was mainly to bring the discussion.
Although library defining some general functions and constants to reduce
duplicity is itself a small improvement, kselftest deserves a proper API.
For both C and shell.

Kind regards,
Petr

  reply	other threads:[~2019-04-08 13:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-04-06 21:49 [RFC PATCH 0/2] Kselftest shell (or even C) API pvorel
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 [this message]
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=20190408130750.GE6493@dell5510 \
    --to=unknown@example.com \
    --subject='Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] selftests: Start shell 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.