Re: [PATCH v14 01/18] kunit: test: add KUnit test runner core

[shuah <shuah@kernel.org>]

On 8/23/19 1:20 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:04 PM shuah <shuah@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 8/23/19 12:56 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 11:32 AM shuah <shuah@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 8/23/19 11:54 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 10:34 AM shuah <shuah@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/23/19 11:27 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 10:05 AM shuah <shuah@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/23/19 10:48 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 8:33 AM shuah <shuah@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Brendan,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/20/19 5:20 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Add core facilities for defining unit tests; this provides a common way
>>>>>>>>>>> to define test cases, functions that execute code which is under test
>>>>>>>>>>> and determine whether the code under test behaves as expected; this also
>>>>>>>>>>> provides a way to group together related test cases in test suites (here
>>>>>>>>>>> we call them test_modules).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Just define test cases and how to execute them for now; setting
>>>>>>>>>>> expectations on code will be defined later.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>        include/kunit/test.h | 179 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>>>>        kunit/Kconfig        |  17 ++++
>>>>>>>>>>>        kunit/Makefile       |   1 +
>>>>>>>>>>>        kunit/test.c         | 191 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>>>>        4 files changed, 388 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>>>>>        create mode 100644 include/kunit/test.h
>>>>>>>>>>>        create mode 100644 kunit/Kconfig
>>>>>>>>>>>        create mode 100644 kunit/Makefile
>>>>>>>>>>>        create mode 100644 kunit/test.c
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h
>>>>>>>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>>>>>>>> index 0000000000000..e0b34acb9ee4e
>>>>>>>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/include/kunit/test.h
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,179 @@
>>>>>>>>>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
>>>>>>>>>>> +/*
>>>>>>>>>>> + * Base unit test (KUnit) API.
>>>>>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>>>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2019, Google LLC.
>>>>>>>>>>> + * Author: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>> +#ifndef _KUNIT_TEST_H
>>>>>>>>>>> +#define _KUNIT_TEST_H
>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>> +#include <linux/types.h>
>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>> +struct kunit;
>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>> +/**
>>>>>>>>>>> + * struct kunit_case - represents an individual test case.
>>>>>>>>>>> + * @run_case: the function representing the actual test case.
>>>>>>>>>>> + * @name: the name of the test case.
>>>>>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>>>>>> + * A test case is a function with the signature, ``void (*)(struct kunit *)``
>>>>>>>>>>> + * that makes expectations (see KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE()) about code under test. Each
>>>>>>>>>>> + * test case is associated with a &struct kunit_suite and will be run after the
>>>>>>>>>>> + * suite's init function and followed by the suite's exit function.
>>>>>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>>>>>> + * A test case should be static and should only be created with the KUNIT_CASE()
>>>>>>>>>>> + * macro; additionally, every array of test cases should be terminated with an
>>>>>>>>>>> + * empty test case.
>>>>>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>>>>>> + * Example:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Can you fix these line continuations. It makes it very hard to read.
>>>>>>>>>> Sorry for this late comment. These comments lines are longer than 80
>>>>>>>>>> and wrap.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> None of the lines in this commit are over 80 characters in column
>>>>>>>>> width. Some are exactly 80 characters (like above).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My guess is that you are seeing the diff added text (+ ), which when
>>>>>>>>> you add that to a line which is exactly 80 char in length ends up
>>>>>>>>> being over 80 char in email. If you apply the patch you will see that
>>>>>>>>> they are only 80 chars.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There are several comment lines in the file that are way too long.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Note that checkpatch also does not complain about any over 80 char
>>>>>>>>> lines in this file.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sorry if I am misunderstanding what you are trying to tell me. Please
>>>>>>>>> confirm either way.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WARNING: Avoid unnecessary line continuations
>>>>>>>> #258: FILE: include/kunit/test.h:137:
>>>>>>>> +                */                                                            \
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> total: 0 errors, 2 warnings, 388 lines checked
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ah, okay so you don't like the warning about the line continuation.
>>>>>>> That's not because it is over 80 char, but because there is a line
>>>>>>> continuation after a comment. I don't really see a way to get rid of
>>>>>>> it without removing the comment from inside the macro.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I put this TODO there in the first place a Luis' request, and I put it
>>>>>>> in the body of the macro because this macro already had a kernel-doc
>>>>>>> comment and I didn't think that an implementation detail TODO belonged
>>>>>>> in the user documentation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Go ahead fix these. It appears there are few lines that either longer
>>>>>>>> than 80. In general, I keep them around 75, so it is easier read.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, the above is the only checkpatch warning other than the
>>>>>>> reminder to update the MAINTAINERS file.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you saying you want me to go through and make all the lines fit in
>>>>>>> 75 char column width? I hope not because that is going to be a pretty
>>>>>>> substantial change to make.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are two things with these comment lines. One is checkpatch
>>>>>> complaining and the other is general readability.
>>>>>
>>>>> So for the checkpatch warning, do you want me to move the comment out
>>>>> of the macro body into the kernel-doc comment? I don't really think it
>>>>> is the right place for a comment of this nature, but I think it is
>>>>> probably better than dropping it entirely (I don't see how else to do
>>>>> it without just removing the comment entirely).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Don't drop the comments. It makes perfect sense to turn this into a
>>>> kernel-doc comment.
>>>
>>> I am fine with that. I will do that in a subsequent revision once we
>>> figure out the column limit issue.
>>>
>>>> We are going back forth on this a lot. I see several lines 81+ in
>>>> this file. I am at 5.3-rc5 and my commit hooks aren't happy. I am
>>>> fine with it if you want to convert these to kernel-doc comments.
>>>> I think it makes perfect sense.
>>>
>>> Okay, so this is interesting. When I look at the applied patches in my
>>> local repo, I don't see any 81+ lines. So it seems that something
>>> interesting is going on here.
>>>
>>> To be clear (sorry for the stupid question) you are seeing the issue
>>> after you applied the patch, and not in the patch file itself?
>>>
>>
>> I am using my normal workflow. My pre-commit check is catching this.
>> Just this patch.
> 
> Okay, *that* is super strange!
> 
> So I have lines in this patch (01/18) that are exactly 80 char wide
> and I was thinking that it might be an off by one issue on either my
> workflow or your workflow, but I have lines in other patches that are
> exactly 80 char wide and our setups agree that they are fine, so I
> really am not sure what's going on here.
> 
> It sounds like you are only seeing the issue in only a couple places,
> do you mind calling out the specific lines that are problematic?

Take a look at the comment blocks. That is where the problem are.

> 
>> All others are good other than the 9/18 BUG() issue.
>>> Since we are still at OSS, would you mind if we meet up this afternoon
>>> so I can see this issue you are seeing? I imagine we should get this
>>> figured out pretty quickly.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah. Would have been nice. I am not at oss today.
> 
> Dang.
> 

thanks,
-- Shuah