From: Iurii Zaikin <email@example.com> To: "Bird, Timothy" <Tim.Bird@sony.com> Cc: Shuah Khan <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Theodore Ts'o" <email@example.com>, Brendan Higgins <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, KUnit Development <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-kselftest/test v2] ext4: add kunit test for decoding extended timestamps Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 17:11:32 -0700 Message-ID: <CAAXuY3oS=fzH0hpdjUpp_tUyypfAs=TaJxtw9L2=feUkLH2sUA@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <ECADFF3FD767C149AD96A924E7EA6EAF977D00C3@USCULXMSG01.am.sony.com> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 4:54 PM <Tim.Bird@sony.com> wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Iurii Zaikin > > > > > You can do all of this and allow users to supply another set of data. > > > It doesn't gave to be one or the other. > > > > > What is the use case for running a unit test on a different data set than > > what it comes with? > > I just gave some ideas in another message (our emails crossed), > but one use case is to allow someone besides the test author > to inject additional data points, and to do so without having to re-compile > the code. > > They might do this for multiple reasons: > - to experiment with additional data points > - to try to diagnose a problem they are seeing > - to fill gaps they see in existing data points > > Whether this makes sense depends on a lot of factors. I suspect > the timestamp test code is not a good candidate for this, as the code > is simple enough that adding a new test case is pretty trivial. For some > other types of tests, adding the data via an external file could be easier > than changing the code of the test. I think feeding test data without recompiling looks attractive right now because in order to run a single test you need to compile and link the whole kernel. I believe KUnit's strategic goal is the ability to only compile the relevant bits, which is admittedly very far off. Normally, in application programming the amount of code that needs to be recompiled in order to run a test suite is small enough that the added complexity of enabling the test to get the data from external sources is not warranted. Typically, external files are used when something is not practical to include in the source file directly due to size or complexity, i.e. a large snippet of text, an image file, some binary data etc. Such needs are typically addressed by the test author rather than the core test framework. Now, in application programming you can do a lot of things like reading a file which is trickier in kernel. But again we've come to supporting a use case for test data which has to be fabricated through some involved process or otherwise not easily included in the source file. And if you come up with an additional test case, why not just add it and leave it there? Unit tests are cheap, even if a case proves to be redundant, the mere fact that the code under test made you think of such a case is sufficient to permanently include the test case into the test suite.
next prev parent reply index Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2019-10-10 2:39 Iurii Zaikin 2019-10-10 3:46 ` Tim.Bird 2019-10-10 16:45 ` Iurii Zaikin 2019-10-10 20:29 ` Tim.Bird 2019-10-10 23:49 ` Iurii Zaikin 2019-10-10 17:11 ` Shuah Khan 2019-10-10 22:13 ` Iurii Zaikin 2019-10-11 10:05 ` Brendan Higgins 2019-10-11 13:19 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o 2019-10-12 2:38 ` Iurii Zaikin 2019-10-16 22:18 ` Brendan Higgins 2019-10-16 23:26 ` Shuah Khan 2019-10-17 0:07 ` Iurii Zaikin 2019-10-17 12:08 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o 2019-10-17 22:25 ` Tim.Bird 2019-10-17 22:56 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o 2019-10-17 23:40 ` Tim.Bird 2019-10-18 1:40 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o 2019-10-18 2:40 ` Tim.Bird 2019-10-18 15:27 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o 2019-10-18 20:24 ` Shuah Khan 2019-10-24 1:30 ` Brendan Higgins 2019-10-18 1:12 ` Brendan Higgins 2019-10-18 1:30 ` Tim.Bird 2019-10-17 22:49 ` Shuah Khan 2019-10-17 23:07 ` Iurii Zaikin 2019-10-17 23:12 ` Shuah Khan 2019-10-17 23:27 ` Iurii Zaikin 2019-10-17 23:42 ` Shuah Khan 2019-10-17 23:54 ` Tim.Bird 2019-10-17 23:59 ` Shuah Khan 2019-10-18 0:11 ` Iurii Zaikin [this message] 2019-10-18 0:38 ` Tim.Bird 2019-10-18 1:06 ` Iurii Zaikin
Reply instructions: You may reply publically 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='CAAXuY3oS=fzH0hpdjUpp_tUyypfAs=TaJxtw9L2=feUkLH2sUA@mail.gmail.com' \ --email@example.com \ --cc=Tim.Bird@sony.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ /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
Linux-ext4 Archive on lore.kernel.org Archives are clonable: git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/0 linux-ext4/git/0.git # If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may # initialize and index your mirror using the following commands: public-inbox-init -V2 linux-ext4 linux-ext4/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4 \ email@example.com public-inbox-index linux-ext4 Example config snippet for mirrors Newsgroup available over NNTP: nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.linux-ext4 AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git