[PATCH v2 1/4] kunit: tool: Do not error on tests without test plans

[PATCH v2 1/4] kunit: tool: Do not error on tests without test plans

[David Gow]

The (K)TAP spec encourages test output to begin with a 'test plan': a
count of the number of tests being run of the form:
1..n

However, some test suites might not know the number of subtests in
advance (for example, KUnit's parameterised tests use a generator
function). In this case, it's not possible to print the test plan in
advance.

kunit_tool already parses test output which doesn't contain a plan, but
reports an error. Since we want to use nested subtests with KUnit
paramterised tests, remove this error.

Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
---
 tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py    | 5 ++---
 tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py | 5 ++++-
 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py
index 3355196d0515..50ded55c168c 100644
--- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py
+++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py
@@ -340,8 +340,8 @@ def parse_test_plan(lines: LineStream, test: Test) -> bool:
 	"""
 	Parses test plan line and stores the expected number of subtests in
 	test object. Reports an error if expected count is 0.
-	Returns False and reports missing test plan error if fails to parse
-	test plan.
+	Returns False and sets expected_count to None if there is no valid test
+	plan.
 
 	Accepted format:
 	- '1..[number of subtests]'
@@ -356,7 +356,6 @@ def parse_test_plan(lines: LineStream, test: Test) -> bool:
 	match = TEST_PLAN.match(lines.peek())
 	if not match:
 		test.expected_count = None
-		test.add_error('missing plan line!')
 		return False
 	test.log.append(lines.pop())
 	expected_count = int(match.group(1))
diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
index 9c4126731457..bc8793145713 100755
--- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
+++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
@@ -191,7 +191,10 @@ class KUnitParserTest(unittest.TestCase):
 			result = kunit_parser.parse_run_tests(
 				kunit_parser.extract_tap_lines(
 				file.readlines()))
-		self.assertEqual(2, result.test.counts.errors)
+		# A missing test plan is not an error.
+		self.assertEqual(0, result.test.counts.errors)
+		# All tests should be accounted for.
+		self.assertEqual(10, result.test.counts.total())
 		self.assertEqual(
 			kunit_parser.TestStatus.SUCCESS,
 			result.status)
-- 
2.33.0.1079.g6e70778dc9-goog

[PATCH v2 2/4] kunit: tool: Report an error if any test has no subtests

[David Gow]

It's possible for a test to have a subtest header, but zero valid
subtests. We used to error on this if the test plan had no subtests
listed, but it's possible to have subtests without a test plan (indeed,
this is how parameterised tests work).

Tests with 0 subtests now have the result NO_TESTS, and will report an
error (which does not halt test execution, but is printed in a scary red
colour and is noted in the results summary).

Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
---
 tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py                | 14 +++++++++-----
 tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py             |  9 +++++++++
 .../test_is_test_passed-no_tests_no_plan.log       |  7 +++++++
 3 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 tools/testing/kunit/test_data/test_is_test_passed-no_tests_no_plan.log

diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py
index 50ded55c168c..3a838423c381 100644
--- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py
+++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py
@@ -360,9 +360,6 @@ def parse_test_plan(lines: LineStream, test: Test) -> bool:
 	test.log.append(lines.pop())
 	expected_count = int(match.group(1))
 	test.expected_count = expected_count
-	if expected_count == 0:
-		test.status = TestStatus.NO_TESTS
-		test.add_error('0 tests run!')
 	return True
 
 TEST_RESULT = re.compile(r'^(ok|not ok) ([0-9]+) (- )?([^#]*)( # .*)?$')
@@ -731,6 +728,7 @@ def parse_test(lines: LineStream, expected_num: int, log: List[str]) -> Test:
 		# test plan
 		test.name = "main"
 		parse_test_plan(lines, test)
+		parent_test = True
 	else:
 		# If KTAP/TAP header is not found, test must be subtest
 		# header or test result line so parse attempt to parser
@@ -744,7 +742,7 @@ def parse_test(lines: LineStream, expected_num: int, log: List[str]) -> Test:
 	expected_count = test.expected_count
 	subtests = []
 	test_num = 1
-	while expected_count is None or test_num <= expected_count:
+	while parent_test and (expected_count is None or test_num <= expected_count):
 		# Loop to parse any subtests.
 		# Break after parsing expected number of tests or
 		# if expected number of tests is unknown break when test
@@ -779,9 +777,15 @@ def parse_test(lines: LineStream, expected_num: int, log: List[str]) -> Test:
 			parse_test_result(lines, test, expected_num)
 		else:
 			test.add_error('missing subtest result line!')
+
+	# Check for there being no tests
+	if parent_test and len(subtests) == 0:
+		test.status = TestStatus.NO_TESTS
+		test.add_error('0 tests run!')
+
 	# Add statuses to TestCounts attribute in Test object
 	bubble_up_test_results(test)
-	if parent_test:
+	if parent_test and not main:
 		# If test has subtests and is not the main test object, print
 		# footer.
 		print_test_footer(test)
diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
index bc8793145713..c59fe0777387 100755
--- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
+++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
@@ -208,6 +208,15 @@ class KUnitParserTest(unittest.TestCase):
 		self.assertEqual(
 			kunit_parser.TestStatus.NO_TESTS,
 			result.status)
+		no_plan_log = test_data_path('test_is_test_passed-no_tests_no_plan.log')
+		with open(no_plan_log) as file:
+			result = kunit_parser.parse_run_tests(
+				kunit_parser.extract_tap_lines(file.readlines()))
+		self.assertEqual(0, len(result.test.subtests[0].subtests[0].subtests))
+		self.assertEqual(
+			kunit_parser.TestStatus.NO_TESTS,
+			result.test.subtests[0].subtests[0].status)
+
 
 	def test_no_kunit_output(self):
 		crash_log = test_data_path('test_insufficient_memory.log')
diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/test_data/test_is_test_passed-no_tests_no_plan.log b/tools/testing/kunit/test_data/test_is_test_passed-no_tests_no_plan.log
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..dd873c981108
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/kunit/test_data/test_is_test_passed-no_tests_no_plan.log
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+TAP version 14
+1..1
+  # Subtest: suite
+  1..1
+    # Subtest: case
+  ok 1 - case # SKIP
+ok 1 - suite
-- 
2.33.0.1079.g6e70778dc9-goog

[PATCH v2 3/4] kunit: Don't crash if no parameters are generated

[David Gow]

It's possible that a parameterised test could end up with zero
parameters. At the moment, the test function will nevertheless be called
with NULL as the parameter. Instead, don't try to run the test code, and
just mark the test as SKIPped.

Reported-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
---
 lib/kunit/test.c | 12 ++++++++----
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/kunit/test.c b/lib/kunit/test.c
index 3bd741e50a2d..e028d98e4f5b 100644
--- a/lib/kunit/test.c
+++ b/lib/kunit/test.c
@@ -500,7 +500,10 @@ int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite)
 	kunit_print_subtest_start(suite);
 
 	kunit_suite_for_each_test_case(suite, test_case) {
-		struct kunit test = { .param_value = NULL, .param_index = 0 };
+		/* The initial param value is nonzero, as we want
+		 * non-parametrised tests to run once.
+		 */
+		struct kunit test = { .param_value = (void *)-1, .param_index = 0 };
 		struct kunit_result_stats param_stats = { 0 };
 		test_case->status = KUNIT_SKIPPED;
 
@@ -510,7 +513,7 @@ int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite)
 			test.param_value = test_case->generate_params(NULL, param_desc);
 		}
 
-		do {
+		while (test.param_value) {
 			kunit_run_case_catch_errors(suite, test_case, &test);
 
 			if (test_case->generate_params) {
@@ -530,11 +533,12 @@ int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite)
 				param_desc[0] = '\0';
 				test.param_value = test_case->generate_params(test.param_value, param_desc);
 				test.param_index++;
-			}
+			} else
+				test.param_value = NULL;
 
 			kunit_update_stats(&param_stats, test.status);
 
-		} while (test.param_value);
+		}
 
 		kunit_print_test_stats(&test, param_stats);
 
-- 
2.33.0.1079.g6e70778dc9-goog

[PATCH v2 4/4] kunit: Report test parameter results as (K)TAP subtests

[David Gow]

Currently, the results for individial parameters in a parameterised test
are simply output as (K)TAP diagnostic lines.

As kunit_tool now supports nested subtests, report each parameter as its
own subtest.

For example, here's what the output now looks like:
	# Subtest: inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding
	ok 1 - 1901-12-13 Lower bound of 32bit < 0 timestamp, no extra bits
	ok 2 - 1969-12-31 Upper bound of 32bit < 0 timestamp, no extra bits
	ok 3 - 1970-01-01 Lower bound of 32bit >=0 timestamp, no extra bits
	ok 4 - 2038-01-19 Upper bound of 32bit >=0 timestamp, no extra bits
	ok 5 - 2038-01-19 Lower bound of 32bit <0 timestamp, lo extra sec bit on
	ok 6 - 2106-02-07 Upper bound of 32bit <0 timestamp, lo extra sec bit on
	ok 7 - 2106-02-07 Lower bound of 32bit >=0 timestamp, lo extra sec bit on
	ok 8 - 2174-02-25 Upper bound of 32bit >=0 timestamp, lo extra sec bit on
	ok 9 - 2174-02-25 Lower bound of 32bit <0 timestamp, hi extra sec bit on
	ok 10 - 2242-03-16 Upper bound of 32bit <0 timestamp, hi extra sec bit on
	ok 11 - 2242-03-16 Lower bound of 32bit >=0 timestamp, hi extra sec bit on
	ok 12 - 2310-04-04 Upper bound of 32bit >=0 timestamp, hi extra sec bit on
	ok 13 - 2310-04-04 Upper bound of 32bit>=0 timestamp, hi extra sec bit 1. 1 ns
	ok 14 - 2378-04-22 Lower bound of 32bit>= timestamp. Extra sec bits 1. Max ns
	ok 15 - 2378-04-22 Lower bound of 32bit >=0 timestamp. All extra sec bits on
	ok 16 - 2446-05-10 Upper bound of 32bit >=0 timestamp. All extra sec bits on
	# inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding: pass:16 fail:0 skip:0 total:16
	ok 1 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding

Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
---
 lib/kunit/test.c | 7 ++++---
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/kunit/test.c b/lib/kunit/test.c
index e028d98e4f5b..fe2ab31b5949 100644
--- a/lib/kunit/test.c
+++ b/lib/kunit/test.c
@@ -511,6 +511,8 @@ int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite)
 			/* Get initial param. */
 			param_desc[0] = '\0';
 			test.param_value = test_case->generate_params(NULL, param_desc);
+			kunit_log(KERN_INFO, &test, KUNIT_SUBTEST_INDENT KUNIT_SUBTEST_INDENT
+				  "# Subtest: %s", test_case->name);
 		}
 
 		while (test.param_value) {
@@ -523,9 +525,8 @@ int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite)
 				}
 
 				kunit_log(KERN_INFO, &test,
-					  KUNIT_SUBTEST_INDENT
-					  "# %s: %s %d - %s",
-					  test_case->name,
+					  KUNIT_SUBTEST_INDENT KUNIT_SUBTEST_INDENT
+					  "%s %d - %s",
 					  kunit_status_to_ok_not_ok(test.status),
 					  test.param_index + 1, param_desc);
 
-- 
2.33.0.1079.g6e70778dc9-goog

Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] kunit: Don't crash if no parameters are generated

[Daniel Latypov]

On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 6:37 PM David Gow <davidgow@google.com> wrote:
>
> It's possible that a parameterised test could end up with zero
> parameters. At the moment, the test function will nevertheless be called
> with NULL as the parameter. Instead, don't try to run the test code, and
> just mark the test as SKIPped.
>
> Reported-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
> ---
>  lib/kunit/test.c | 12 ++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/kunit/test.c b/lib/kunit/test.c
> index 3bd741e50a2d..e028d98e4f5b 100644
> --- a/lib/kunit/test.c
> +++ b/lib/kunit/test.c
> @@ -500,7 +500,10 @@ int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite)
>         kunit_print_subtest_start(suite);
>
>         kunit_suite_for_each_test_case(suite, test_case) {
> -               struct kunit test = { .param_value = NULL, .param_index = 0 };
> +               /* The initial param value is nonzero, as we want
> +                * non-parametrised tests to run once.
> +                */
> +               struct kunit test = { .param_value = (void *)-1, .param_index = 0 };

(Not a strong preference)

Hmm, I'd slightly prefer we don't set a dummy value of -1 for this.
I personally think something like this is a bit less subtle:

/* Run non-parameterised tests once */
while (!test_case->generate_param || test.param_value) {

  if (!test_case->generate_param) break;
}

Alternatively, we don't need to share the loop

if (!test_case->generate_param) {
  kunit_run_case_catch_errors(suite, test_case, &test);
  kunit_update_stats(&param_stats, test.status);
} else while (test_param.value) {
   kunit_run_case_catch_errors(suite, test_case, &test);
   kunit_update_stats(&param_stats, test.status);
   /* print subtest and advance next param */
}

}


>                 struct kunit_result_stats param_stats = { 0 };
>                 test_case->status = KUNIT_SKIPPED;
>
> @@ -510,7 +513,7 @@ int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite)
>                         test.param_value = test_case->generate_params(NULL, param_desc);
>                 }
>
> -               do {
> +               while (test.param_value) {
>                         kunit_run_case_catch_errors(suite, test_case, &test);
>
>                         if (test_case->generate_params) {
> @@ -530,11 +533,12 @@ int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite)
>                                 param_desc[0] = '\0';
>                                 test.param_value = test_case->generate_params(test.param_value, param_desc);
>                                 test.param_index++;
> -                       }
> +                       } else
> +                               test.param_value = NULL;
>
>                         kunit_update_stats(&param_stats, test.status);
>
> -               } while (test.param_value);
> +               }
>
>                 kunit_print_test_stats(&test, param_stats);
>
> --
> 2.33.0.1079.g6e70778dc9-goog
>

Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] kunit: tool: Do not error on tests without test plans

[Daniel Latypov]

On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 6:37 PM David Gow <davidgow@google.com> wrote:
>
> The (K)TAP spec encourages test output to begin with a 'test plan': a
> count of the number of tests being run of the form:
> 1..n
>
> However, some test suites might not know the number of subtests in
> advance (for example, KUnit's parameterised tests use a generator
> function). In this case, it's not possible to print the test plan in
> advance.
>
> kunit_tool already parses test output which doesn't contain a plan, but
> reports an error. Since we want to use nested subtests with KUnit
> paramterised tests, remove this error.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>

Reviewed-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>

This looks to be unchanged from v1.
Looks good to me given kunit itself will report SKIPPED for parameterised tests.

> ---
>  tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py    | 5 ++---
>  tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py | 5 ++++-
>  2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py
> index 3355196d0515..50ded55c168c 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py
> +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py
> @@ -340,8 +340,8 @@ def parse_test_plan(lines: LineStream, test: Test) -> bool:
>         """
>         Parses test plan line and stores the expected number of subtests in
>         test object. Reports an error if expected count is 0.
> -       Returns False and reports missing test plan error if fails to parse
> -       test plan.
> +       Returns False and sets expected_count to None if there is no valid test
> +       plan.
>
>         Accepted format:
>         - '1..[number of subtests]'
> @@ -356,7 +356,6 @@ def parse_test_plan(lines: LineStream, test: Test) -> bool:
>         match = TEST_PLAN.match(lines.peek())
>         if not match:
>                 test.expected_count = None
> -               test.add_error('missing plan line!')
>                 return False
>         test.log.append(lines.pop())
>         expected_count = int(match.group(1))
> diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
> index 9c4126731457..bc8793145713 100755
> --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
> +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
> @@ -191,7 +191,10 @@ class KUnitParserTest(unittest.TestCase):
>                         result = kunit_parser.parse_run_tests(
>                                 kunit_parser.extract_tap_lines(
>                                 file.readlines()))
> -               self.assertEqual(2, result.test.counts.errors)
> +               # A missing test plan is not an error.
> +               self.assertEqual(0, result.test.counts.errors)
> +               # All tests should be accounted for.
> +               self.assertEqual(10, result.test.counts.total())
>                 self.assertEqual(
>                         kunit_parser.TestStatus.SUCCESS,
>                         result.status)
> --
> 2.33.0.1079.g6e70778dc9-goog
>

Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] kunit: tool: Do not error on tests without test plans

[David Gow]

On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 6:13 AM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 6:37 PM David Gow <davidgow@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > The (K)TAP spec encourages test output to begin with a 'test plan': a
> > count of the number of tests being run of the form:
> > 1..n
> >
> > However, some test suites might not know the number of subtests in
> > advance (for example, KUnit's parameterised tests use a generator
> > function). In this case, it's not possible to print the test plan in
> > advance.
> >
> > kunit_tool already parses test output which doesn't contain a plan, but
> > reports an error. Since we want to use nested subtests with KUnit
> > paramterised tests, remove this error.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
>
> Reviewed-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
>
> This looks to be unchanged from v1.

Yeah, the changes in v2 were all in the new patches.

-- David