From: Brendan Higgins <email@example.com> To: Iurii Zaikin <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: Kees Cook <email@example.com>, Luis Chamberlain <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Alan Maguire <email@example.com>, Matthias Maennich <firstname.lastname@example.org>, shuah <email@example.com>, John Johansen <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, David Gow <email@example.com>, "Theodore Ts'o" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, KUnit Development <email@example.com>, "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Mike Salvatore <email@example.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-kselftest/test v1] apparmor: add AppArmor KUnit tests for policy unpack Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 02:33:32 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CAFd5g446cyijzgap9r8nm_202zkUsfdZXrn5E1_Mfe-R+eFb_g@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CAAXuY3o31iCJwZ+WGHMaK1MgpC0qv=JkJWnzv8Lhym9TnZQvcQ@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 1:12 PM Iurii Zaikin <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > Why can't unit tests live with the code they're testing? They're already > > logically tied together; what's the harm there? This needn't be the case > > for ALL tests, etc. The test driver could still live externally. The > > test in the other .c would just have exported functions... ? > > > Curiously enough, this approach has been adopted by D 2.0 where unittests are > members of the class under test: https://digitalmars.com/d/2.0/unittest.html Thanks for pointing this out, Iurii, that actually looks pretty cool. I still personally prefer keeping tests and code separate, but if we decide to go the route of mixing tests and code, maybe we might want to use this as a model. > but such approach is not mainstream. > I personally like the idea of testing the lowest level bits in isolation even if > they are not a part of any interface. I think that specifying the > interface using > unit tests and ensuring implementation correctness are complementary but > I haven't had much luck arguing this with our esteemed colleagues. So I think this is a very subtle point which is very widely misunderstood. Most people write code and then write their tests, following this practice along with only testing public interfaces often causes people to just not test all of their code, which is wrong. The idea of only testing public interfaces is supposed to make people think more carefully about what the composite layers of the program is. If you are having difficulty getting decent coverage by only testing your public interfaces, then it likely tells you that you have one of two problems: 1) You have code that you don't need, and you should remove it. 2) One of the layers in your program is too think, and you should introduce a new layer with a new public interface that you can test through. I think the second point here is problematic with how C is written in the kernel. We don't really have any concept of public vs. private inside the kernel outside of static vs. not static, which is much more restricted.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-31 9:33 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2019-10-18 0:18 Brendan Higgins 2019-10-18 0:33 ` Iurii Zaikin 2019-10-30 18:59 ` Kees Cook 2019-11-06 0:35 ` Brendan Higgins 2019-11-06 0:37 ` Brendan Higgins 2019-10-18 0:43 ` Brendan Higgins 2019-10-18 16:25 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o 2019-10-18 21:41 ` Brendan Higgins 2019-10-30 19:02 ` Kees Cook 2019-10-31 9:01 ` Brendan Higgins 2019-10-18 12:29 ` Luis Chamberlain 2019-10-19 12:56 ` Alan Maguire 2019-10-19 18:36 ` Luis Chamberlain 2019-10-24 0:42 ` Brendan Higgins 2019-10-24 10:15 ` Luis Chamberlain 2019-10-30 19:09 ` Kees Cook 2019-10-30 20:11 ` Iurii Zaikin 2019-10-31 1:40 ` John Johansen 2019-10-31 9:33 ` Brendan Higgins [this message] 2019-10-31 18:40 ` Kees Cook 2019-11-05 16:43 ` Mike Salvatore 2019-11-05 23:59 ` Brendan Higgins 2019-10-31 1:37 ` John Johansen 2019-10-31 9:17 ` Brendan Higgins 2019-11-01 12:30 ` Alan Maguire 2019-11-05 23:44 ` Brendan Higgins
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly 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=CAFd5g446cyijzgap9r8nm_202zkUsfdZXrn5E1_Mfe-R+eFb_g@mail.gmail.com \ --email@example.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 \ --email@example.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 \ --email@example.com \ --subject='Re: [PATCH linux-kselftest/test v1] apparmor: add AppArmor KUnit tests for policy unpack' \ /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
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).