From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: brendanhiggins@google.com (Brendan Higgins)
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 15:15:45 -0700
Subject: [RFC v3 18/19] of: unittest: split out a couple of test cases
 from unittest
In-Reply-To: <bf094685-3f2a-dc7b-7291-0340136b87f3@gmail.com>
References: <20181128193636.254378-1-brendanhiggins@google.com>
 <20181128193636.254378-19-brendanhiggins@google.com>
 <990bfc7d-dc5e-d8d3-c151-9b321ff2ac10@gmail.com>
 <CAFd5g45tOGgf_sKGYRC=fpnTBKGaG=8frbQdgZ3ZTkQFyTfP5A@mail.gmail.com>
 <88fe0546-7850-5bb4-9673-b1aef2dccb3e@gmail.com>
 <CAFd5g444f-FBq4x3U7BL-EY+bFxP0rsJhJ14=mjOi89PhMkURg@mail.gmail.com>
 <0e311e88-c4d4-e98d-1720-53a04bd526fc@gmail.com>
 <CAFd5g44NTZoSAJPMvXP2xvJgn7m5QoV-KJu2AMrr67+eL+CKrQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <d9f7e000-4cac-a35a-3ff9-60130e12ebea@gmail.com>
 <72cd1c5b-6f68-73ad-c8fd-f3a3268a0529@gmail.com>
 <CAFd5g46UU9wk+F6A5wnKYYtYKmmtv__SaY8eg6v-T9xUjsoxhA@mail.gmail.com>
 <bb5bcd3d-a09a-cfbe-c7fa-16e5eb75b0e4@gmail.com>
 <CAFd5g448xQLOJwVYU5Zmu4+OPWuboiWZPhBvK6au8Pgm5B9haQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <bf094685-3f2a-dc7b-7291-0340136b87f3@gmail.com>
Message-ID:
 <CAFd5g46tpL8KaqKnAEWNRSBWpYMcptu1Eig+nEzq9HX7DF1YUA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-ID: <20190325221545.Ax7jbetdVvnzewEXqw7YmxNbnGPxeu697wfHazK6TfE@z>

On Thu, Mar 21, 2019@6:47 PM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/21/19 6:30 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019@5:22 PM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2/27/19 7:52 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>
> < snip >  but thanks for the comments in the snipped section.
>
>
> >>
> >> Thanks for leaving 18/19 and 19/19 off in v4.
> >
> > Sure, no problem. It was pretty clear that it was a waste of both of
> > our times to continue discussing those at this juncture. :-)
> >
> > Do you still want me to try to convert the DT not-exactly-unittest to
> > KUnit? I would kind of prefer (I don't feel *super* strongly about the
> > matter) we don't call it that since I was intending for it to be the
> > flagship initial example, but I certainly don't mind trying to clean
> > this patch up to get it up to snuff. It's really just a question of
> > whether it is worth it to you.
>
> In the long term, if KUnit is adopted by the kernel, then I think it
> probably makes sense for devicetree unittest to convert from using
> our own unittest() function to report an individual test pass/fail
> to instead use something like KUNIT_EXPECT_*() to provide more
> consistent test messages to test frameworks.  That is assuming
> KUNIT_EXPECT_*() provides comparable functionality.  I still have
> not looked into that question since the converted tests (patch 15/17
> in v4) still does not execute without throwing internal errors.

Sounds good.

>
> If that conversion occurred, I would also avoid the ASSERTs.

Noted.