From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 680C6C4741F for ; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 15:02:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from silver.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B36E2206D9 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 15:02:40 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="XWfoih1a" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org B36E2206D9 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lists.linuxfoundation.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-mentees-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00BE923600; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 15:02:40 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from silver.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HwxtHaSU2y+d; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 15:02:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.linuxfoundation.org (lf-lists.osuosl.org [140.211.9.56]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E36762001F; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 15:02:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lf-lists.osuosl.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6573C0893; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 15:02:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from whitealder.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB9B3C0889 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 15:02:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by whitealder.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC6D386665 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 15:02:35 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from whitealder.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rC897IRislb5 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 15:02:34 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-oi1-f194.google.com (mail-oi1-f194.google.com [209.85.167.194]) by whitealder.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CE1886663 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 15:02:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oi1-f194.google.com with SMTP id c80so1971767oib.2 for ; Thu, 05 Nov 2020 07:02:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=cE/I/a+glK1wUH+iTxJhL2yUQISg6MuRdUIRRW+E5aM=; b=XWfoih1azO52w8zDO8vLQZaZk7ivT6hGvNeaPjNANFyj50IKJJF8IW7ZkFiY/L1nlY WWlOT2qOFphxGQRH7hTc7Z1wJEoNvxVBSvwEPvtkZxkO0W6ZCuHeq8CSY73cqsoFZrfo XLYzAdsJzfrS2tmQKkenSNEHSZ+DMD5KeDop+9D8BgJDoe+OaLYZj4W1ByUJ1046ehLM X3P/ePaHe97CBFgW9fOb3OTjnqxdVLdnBSNUjcH8l3/MHctXU+QsqBhvf7yqICmCVz3t Eeux8T0k0td/dXGkRtGH/qSZVEc3Vg8OGEfqYl4q/yfl/OyDnlaz2zqyP92LG2hqba9K EbZQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=cE/I/a+glK1wUH+iTxJhL2yUQISg6MuRdUIRRW+E5aM=; b=gMJ+bCMtEgg/tX2dfNloYXD7EyGG082lOdmqh8XGGtdISbZxh5sBKa80Mo/nF79Z1u c+ZIK1NgXzmaQih9HRJwK6iotreZu5/CeGClFzBGbstFQ3CRdsW8c3bZ7Vs1gNgp3MSu CUkyZxz6zotl/oOaZUXxZHE/bWrub6fkhe8K9lsM0H65cW0JrzFGUeiTuvSmngWBpSMf lTRO5//4Q4lWn2BOdFlx//0tQaktmAWnu6b4XlmyejP37/dRjSmrrDmaej/EI1B6QaYB Q8cjPxzq/sJ5JMIwu5j3ZNXIWRDreMADes9UrTInk3pgJpsYhLXDgjjfZkEHK4UOKuYV 2HzQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530c3j0F6GWdcIfk2S4/AR+k6Sk3pBwVLQ6HY9DpQddhzW2EKCc8 jxZeTIJdM1OdBmPOO6klCz03pIEKf3OUc8ufzp9+lw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwlDum//2HtQ05yrZR7wh0KZAwhZgTaBZF9xruJBFjtyASBnPmJRL+f0WxhgcHdfPPfsHwrxdJzMnjhyCd7NoY= X-Received: by 2002:aca:a988:: with SMTP id s130mr1817540oie.172.1604588553492; Thu, 05 Nov 2020 07:02:33 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201027174630.85213-1-98.arpi@gmail.com> <73c4e46c-10f1-9362-b4fb-94ea9d74e9b2@gmail.com> <77d6dc66-1086-a9ae-ccbc-bb062ff81437@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <77d6dc66-1086-a9ae-ccbc-bb062ff81437@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2020 16:02:21 +0100 Message-ID: To: Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@gmail.com> Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Theodore Ts'o , Brendan Higgins , LKML , Andreas Dilger , "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" , Iurii Zaikin , linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org, KUnit Development Subject: Re: [Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH v4 1/2] kunit: Support for Parameterized Testing X-BeenThere: linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Marco Elver via Linux-kernel-mentees Reply-To: Marco Elver Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: linux-kernel-mentees-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org Sender: "Linux-kernel-mentees" On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 15:30, Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 05/11/20 2:00 pm, Marco Elver wrote: > > On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 08:32, Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On 28/10/20 12:51 am, Marco Elver wrote: > >>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 at 18:47, Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Implementation of support for parameterized testing in KUnit. > >>>> This approach requires the creation of a test case using the > >>>> KUNIT_CASE_PARAM macro that accepts a generator function as input. > >>>> This generator function should return the next parameter given the > >>>> previous parameter in parameterized tests. It also provides > >>>> a macro to generate common-case generators. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@gmail.com> > >>>> Co-developed-by: Marco Elver > >>>> Signed-off-by: Marco Elver > >>>> --- > >>>> Changes v3->v4: > >>>> - Rename kunit variables > >>>> - Rename generator function helper macro > >>>> - Add documentation for generator approach > >>>> - Display test case name in case of failure along with param index > >>>> Changes v2->v3: > >>>> - Modifictaion of generator macro and method > >>>> Changes v1->v2: > >>>> - Use of a generator method to access test case parameters > >>>> > >>>> include/kunit/test.h | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>>> lib/kunit/test.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++++++- > >>>> 2 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>>> > >>>> diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h > >>>> index 9197da792336..ec2307ee9bb0 100644 > >>>> --- a/include/kunit/test.h > >>>> +++ b/include/kunit/test.h > >>>> @@ -107,6 +107,13 @@ struct kunit; > >>>> * > >>>> * @run_case: the function representing the actual test case. > >>>> * @name: the name of the test case. > >>>> + * @generate_params: the generator function for parameterized tests. > >>>> + * > >>>> + * The generator function is used to lazily generate a series of > >>>> + * arbitrarily typed values that fit into a void*. The argument @prev > >>>> + * is the previously returned value, which should be used to derive the > >>>> + * next value; @prev is set to NULL on the initial generator call. > >>>> + * When no more values are available, the generator must return NULL. > >>>> * > >>> > >>> Hmm, should this really be the first paragraph? I think it should be > >>> the paragraph before "Example:" maybe. But then that paragraph should > >>> refer to generate_params e.g. "The generator function @generate_params > >>> is used to ........". > >>> > >>> The other option you have is to move this paragraph to the kernel-doc > >>> comment for KUNIT_CASE_PARAM, which seems to be missing a kernel-doc > >>> comment. > >>> > >>>> * A test case is a function with the signature, > >>>> * ``void (*)(struct kunit *)`` > >>>> @@ -141,6 +148,7 @@ struct kunit; > >>>> struct kunit_case { > >>>> void (*run_case)(struct kunit *test); > >>>> const char *name; > >>>> + void* (*generate_params)(void *prev); > >>>> > >>>> /* private: internal use only. */ > >>>> bool success; > >>>> @@ -162,6 +170,9 @@ static inline char *kunit_status_to_string(bool status) > >>>> * &struct kunit_case for an example on how to use it. > >>>> */ > >>>> #define KUNIT_CASE(test_name) { .run_case = test_name, .name = #test_name } > >>> > >>> I.e. create a new kernel-doc comment for KUNIT_CASE_PARAM here, and > >>> simply move the paragraph describing the generator protocol into that > >>> comment. > >>> > >>>> +#define KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(test_name, gen_params) \ > >>>> + { .run_case = test_name, .name = #test_name, \ > >>>> + .generate_params = gen_params } > >>>> > >>>> /** > >>>> * struct kunit_suite - describes a related collection of &struct kunit_case > >>>> @@ -208,6 +219,15 @@ struct kunit { > >>>> const char *name; /* Read only after initialization! */ > >>>> char *log; /* Points at case log after initialization */ > >>>> struct kunit_try_catch try_catch; > >>>> + /* param_value points to test case parameters in parameterized tests */ > >>> > >>> Hmm, not quite: param_value is the current parameter value for a test > >>> case. Most likely it's a pointer, but it doesn't need to be. > >>> > >>>> + void *param_value; > >>>> + /* > >>>> + * param_index stores the index of the parameter in > >>>> + * parameterized tests. param_index + 1 is printed > >>>> + * to indicate the parameter that causes the test > >>>> + * to fail in case of test failure. > >>>> + */ > >>> > >>> I think this comment needs to be reformatted, because you can use at > >>> the very least use 80 cols per line. (If you use vim, visual select > >>> and do 'gq'.) > >>> > >>>> + int param_index; > >>>> /* > >>>> * success starts as true, and may only be set to false during a > >>>> * test case; thus, it is safe to update this across multiple > >>>> @@ -1742,4 +1762,18 @@ do { \ > >>>> fmt, \ > >>>> ##__VA_ARGS__) > >>>> > >>>> +/** > >>>> + * KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM() - Helper method for test parameter generators > >>>> + * required in parameterized tests. > >>>> + * @name: prefix of the name for the test parameter generator function. > >>>> + * It will be suffixed by "_gen_params". > >>>> + * @array: a user-supplied pointer to an array of test parameters. > >>>> + */ > >>>> +#define KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM(name, array) \ > >>>> + static void *name##_gen_params(void *prev) \ > >>>> + { \ > >>>> + typeof((array)[0]) * __next = prev ? ((typeof(__next)) prev) + 1 : (array); \ > >>>> + return __next - (array) < ARRAY_SIZE((array)) ? __next : NULL; \ > >>>> + } > >>>> + > >>>> #endif /* _KUNIT_TEST_H */ > >>>> diff --git a/lib/kunit/test.c b/lib/kunit/test.c > >>>> index 750704abe89a..8ad908b61494 100644 > >>>> --- a/lib/kunit/test.c > >>>> +++ b/lib/kunit/test.c > >>>> @@ -127,6 +127,12 @@ unsigned int kunit_test_case_num(struct kunit_suite *suite, > >>>> } > >>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kunit_test_case_num); > >>>> > >>>> +static void kunit_print_failed_param(struct kunit *test) > >>>> +{ > >>>> + kunit_err(test, "\n\tTest failed at:\n\ttest case: %s\n\tparameter: %d\n", > >>>> + test->name, test->param_index + 1); > >>>> +} > >>> > >>> Hmm, perhaps I wasn't clear, but I think I also misunderstood how the > >>> test case successes are presented: they are not, and it's all bunched > >>> into a single test case. > >>> > >>> Firstly, kunit_err() already prints the test name, so if we want > >>> something like " # : the_test_case_name: failed at parameter #X", > >>> simply having > >>> > >>> kunit_err(test, "failed at parameter #%d\n", test->param_index + 1) > >>> > >>> would be what you want. > >>> > >>> But I think I missed that parameters do not actually produce a set of > >>> test cases (sorry for noticing late). I think in their current form, > >>> the parameterized tests would not be useful for my tests, because each > >>> of my tests have test cases that have specific init and exit > >>> functions. For each parameter, these would also need to run. > >>> > >>> Ideally, each parameter produces its own independent test case > >>> "test_case#param_index". That way, CI systems will also be able to > >>> logically separate different test case params, simply because each > >>> param produced its own distinct test case. > >>> > >>> So, for example, we would get a series of test cases from something > >>> like KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(test_case, foo_gen_params), and in the output > >>> we'd see: > >>> > >>> ok X - test_case#1 > >>> ok X - test_case#2 > >>> ok X - test_case#3 > >>> ok X - test_case#4 > >>> .... > >>> > >>> Would that make more sense? > >>> > >>> That way we'd ensure that test-case specific initialization and > >>> cleanup done in init and exit functions is properly taken care of, and > >>> you wouldn't need kunit_print_failed_param(). > >>> > >>> AFAIK, for what I propose you'd have to modify kunit_print_ok_not_ok() > >>> (show param_index if parameterized test) and probably > >>> kunit_run_case_catch_errors() (generate params and set > >>> test->param_value and param_index). > >>> > >>> Was there a reason why each param cannot be a distinct test case? If > >>> not, I think this would be more useful. > >>> > >> > >> I tried adding support to run each parameter as a distinct test case by > >> making changes to kunit_run_case_catch_errors(). The issue here is that > >> since the results are displayed in KTAP format, this change will result in > >> each parameter being considered a subtest of another subtest (test case > >> in KUnit). > > > > Do you have example output? That might help understand what's going on. > > > > The change that I tried can be seen here (based on the v4 patch): > https://gist.github.com/arpi-r/4822899087ca4cc34572ed9e45cc5fee. > > Using the kunit tool, I get this error: > > [19:20:41] [ERROR] expected 7 test suites, but got -1 > [ERROR] no tests run! > [19:20:41] ============================================================ > [19:20:41] Testing complete. 0 tests run. 0 failed. 0 crashed. > > But this error is only because of how the tool displays the results. > The test actually does run, as can be seen in the dmesg output: > > TAP version 14 > 1..7 > # Subtest: ext4_inode_test > 1..1 > ok 1 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding 1 > ok 1 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding 2 > ok 1 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding 3 > ok 1 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding 4 > ok 1 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding 5 > ok 1 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding 6 > ok 1 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding 7 > ok 1 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding 8 > ok 1 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding 9 > ok 1 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding 10 > ok 1 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding 11 > ok 1 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding 12 > ok 1 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding 13 > ok 1 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding 14 > ok 1 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding 15 > ok 1 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding 16 > ok 1 - ext4_inode_test > (followed by other kunit test outputs) Hmm, interesting. Let me play with your patch a bit. One option is to just have the test case number increment as well, i.e. have this: | ok 1 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding#1 | ok 2 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding#2 | ok 3 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding#3 | ok 4 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding#4 | ok 5 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding#5 ... Or is there something else I missed? Thanks, -- Marco _______________________________________________ Linux-kernel-mentees mailing list Linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-kernel-mentees