From: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
To: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>
Cc: brakmo@fb.com, dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, shuah@kernel.org,
Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Knut Omang <knut.omang@oracle.com>,
Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham@ideasonboard.com>,
Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au>, Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>,
"Bird," Timothy" <Tim.Bird@sony.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@google.com>," linux-um@lists.infradead.org,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>,
kunit-dev@googlegroups.com,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 17/19] of: unittest: migrate tests to run on KUnit
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 16:29:04 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFd5g45GjG871ynfMADN+4zmecfARCk2ribY7MsMSc4=QkNqgQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1d72f04e-08ba-e3dd-c8c0-512946126113@gmail.com>
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 2:56 PM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/12/19 5:44 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 12:56 PM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 1:38 PM Brendan Higgins
> >> <brendanhiggins@google.com> wrote:
<snip>
> >>> ---
> >>> drivers/of/Kconfig | 1 +
> >>> drivers/of/unittest.c | 1405 ++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> >>> 2 files changed, 752 insertions(+), 654 deletions(-)
> >>>
> > <snip>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/of/unittest.c b/drivers/of/unittest.c
> >>> index 41b49716ac75f..a5ef44730ffdb 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/of/unittest.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/of/unittest.c
<snip>
> >>> +
> >>> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test,
> >>> + of_property_match_string(np,
> >>> + "phandle-list-names",
> >>> + "first"),
> >>> + 0);
> >>> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test,
> >>> + of_property_match_string(np,
> >>> + "phandle-list-names",
> >>> + "second"),
> >>> + 1);
> >>
> >> Fewer lines on these would be better even if we go over 80 chars.
>
> Agreed. unittest.c already is a greater than 80 char file in general, and
> is a file that benefits from that.
>
Noted.
>
> > On the of_property_match_string(...), I have no opinion. I will do
> > whatever you like best.
> >
> > Nevertheless, as far as the KUNIT_EXPECT_*(...), I do have an opinion: I am
> > trying to establish a good, readable convention. Given an expect statement
> > structured as
> > ```
> > KUNIT_EXPECT_*(
> > test,
> > expect_arg_0, ..., expect_arg_n,
> > fmt_str, fmt_arg_0, ..., fmt_arg_n)
> > ```
> > where `test` is the `struct kunit` context argument, `expect_arg_{0, ..., n}`
> > are the arguments the expectations is being made about (so in the above example,
> > `of_property_match_string(...)` and `1`), and `fmt_*` is the optional format
> > string that comes at the end of some expectations.
> >
> > The pattern I had been trying to promote is the following:
> >
> > 1) If everything fits on 1 line, do that.
> > 2) If you must make a line split, prefer to keep `test` on its own line,
> > `expect_arg_{0, ..., n}` should be kept together, if possible, and the format
> > string should follow the conventions already most commonly used with format
> > strings.
> > 3) If you must split up `expect_arg_{0, ..., n}` each argument should get its
> > own line and should not share a line with either `test` or any `fmt_*`.
> >
> > The reason I care about this so much is because expectations should be
> > extremely easy to read; they are the most important part of a unit
> > test because they tell you what the test is verifying. I am not
> > married to the formatting I proposed above, but I want something that
> > will be extremely easy to identify the arguments that the expectation
> > is on. Maybe that means that I need to add some syntactic fluff to
> > make it clearer, I don't know, but this is definitely something we
> > need to get right, especially in the earliest examples.
>
> I will probably raise the ire of the kernel formatting rule makers by offering
> what I think is a _much_ more readable format __for this specific case__.
> In other words for drivers/of/unittest.c.
>
> If you can not make your mail window _very_ wide, or if this email has been
> line wrapped, this example will not be clear.
>
> Two possible formats:
>
>
> ### ----- version 1, as created by the patch series
>
> static void of_unittest_property_string(struct kunit *test)
> {
> const char *strings[4];
> struct device_node *np;
> int rc;
>
> np = of_find_node_by_path("/testcase-data/phandle-tests/consumer-a");
> KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, np);
>
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(
> test,
> of_property_match_string(np, "phandle-list-names", "first"),
> 0);
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(
> test,
> of_property_match_string(np, "phandle-list-names", "second"),
> 1);
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(
> test,
> of_property_match_string(np, "phandle-list-names", "third"),
> 2);
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(
> test,
> of_property_match_string(np, "phandle-list-names", "fourth"),
> -ENODATA,
> "unmatched string");
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(
> test,
> of_property_match_string(np, "missing-property", "blah"),
> -EINVAL,
> "missing property");
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(
> test,
> of_property_match_string(np, "empty-property", "blah"),
> -ENODATA,
> "empty property");
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(
> test,
> of_property_match_string(np, "unterminated-string", "blah"),
> -EILSEQ,
> "unterminated string");
>
> /* of_property_count_strings() tests */
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test,
> of_property_count_strings(np, "string-property"), 1);
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test,
> of_property_count_strings(np, "phandle-list-names"), 3);
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(
> test,
> of_property_count_strings(np, "unterminated-string"), -EILSEQ,
> "unterminated string");
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(
> test,
> of_property_count_strings(np, "unterminated-string-list"),
> -EILSEQ,
> "unterminated string array");
>
>
>
>
> ### ----- version 2, modified to use really long lines
>
> static void of_unittest_property_string(struct kunit *test)
> {
> const char *strings[4];
> struct device_node *np;
> int rc;
>
> np = of_find_node_by_path("/testcase-data/phandle-tests/consumer-a");
> KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, np);
>
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ( test, of_property_match_string(np, "phandle-list-names", "first"), 0);
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ( test, of_property_match_string(np, "phandle-list-names", "second"), 1);
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ( test, of_property_match_string(np, "phandle-list-names", "third"), 2);
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, of_property_match_string(np, "phandle-list-names", "fourth"), -ENODATA, "unmatched string");
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, of_property_match_string(np, "missing-property", "blah"), -EINVAL, "missing property");
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, of_property_match_string(np, "empty-property", "blah"), -ENODATA, "empty property");
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, of_property_match_string(np, "unterminated-string", "blah"), -EILSEQ, "unterminated string");
>
> /* of_property_count_strings() tests */
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ( test, of_property_count_strings(np, "string-property"), 1);
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ( test, of_property_count_strings(np, "phandle-list-names"), 3);
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, of_property_count_strings(np, "unterminated-string"), -EILSEQ, "unterminated string");
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, of_property_count_strings(np, "unterminated-string-list"), -EILSEQ, "unterminated string array");
>
>
> ------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------
> ^ ^ ^
> | | |
> | | |
> mostly boilerplate what is being tested expected result, error message
> (can vary in relop
> and _MSG or not)
>
> In my opinion, the second version is much more readable. It is easy to see the
> differences in the boilerplate. It is easy to see what is being tested, and how
> the arguments of the tested function vary for each test. It is easy to see the
> expected result and error message. The entire block fits into a single short
> window (though much wider).
I have no opinion on the over 80 char thing, so as long as everyone
else is okay with it, I have no complaints.
Cheers
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list
Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-28 0:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 118+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-28 19:36 [RFC v3 00/19] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework Brendan Higgins
2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 01/19] kunit: test: add KUnit test runner core Brendan Higgins
2018-11-30 3:14 ` Luis Chamberlain
2018-12-01 1:51 ` Brendan Higgins
2018-12-01 2:57 ` Luis Chamberlain
2018-12-05 13:15 ` Anton Ivanov
2018-12-05 14:45 ` Arnd Bergmann
2018-12-05 14:49 ` Anton Ivanov
2018-11-30 3:28 ` Luis Chamberlain
[not found] ` <20181130032802.GG18410-dAjH6bxAqesAS62YNPtMr3dQhYtBYE6JAL8bYrjMMd8@public.gmane.org>
2018-12-01 2:08 ` Brendan Higgins
2018-12-01 3:10 ` Luis Chamberlain
[not found] ` <20181201031049.GL28501-dAjH6bxAqesAS62YNPtMr3dQhYtBYE6JAL8bYrjMMd8@public.gmane.org>
2018-12-03 22:47 ` Brendan Higgins
2018-12-01 3:02 ` Luis Chamberlain
2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 10/19] kunit: test: add test managed resource tests Brendan Higgins
[not found] ` <20181128193636.254378-1-brendanhiggins-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 02/19] kunit: test: add test resource management API Brendan Higgins
2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 03/19] kunit: test: add string_stream a std::stream like string builder Brendan Higgins
2018-11-30 3:29 ` Luis Chamberlain
2018-12-01 2:14 ` Brendan Higgins
2018-12-01 3:12 ` Luis Chamberlain
2018-12-03 10:55 ` Petr Mladek
2018-12-04 0:35 ` Brendan Higgins
2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 04/19] kunit: test: add test_stream a std::stream like logger Brendan Higgins
2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 05/19] kunit: test: add the concept of expectations Brendan Higgins
2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 06/19] arch: um: enable running kunit from User Mode Linux Brendan Higgins
2018-11-28 21:26 ` Rob Herring
2018-11-30 3:37 ` Luis Chamberlain
2018-11-30 14:05 ` Rob Herring
2018-11-30 18:22 ` Luis Chamberlain
[not found] ` <20181130182203.GS18410-dAjH6bxAqesAS62YNPtMr3dQhYtBYE6JAL8bYrjMMd8@public.gmane.org>
2018-12-03 23:22 ` Brendan Higgins
2018-11-30 3:30 ` Luis Chamberlain
2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 07/19] kunit: test: add initial tests Brendan Higgins
2018-11-30 3:40 ` Luis Chamberlain
2018-12-03 23:26 ` Brendan Higgins
2018-12-03 23:43 ` Luis Chamberlain
2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 08/19] arch: um: add shim to trap to allow installing a fault catcher for tests Brendan Higgins
2018-11-30 3:34 ` Luis Chamberlain
[not found] ` <20181130033429.GK18410-dAjH6bxAqesAS62YNPtMr3dQhYtBYE6JAL8bYrjMMd8@public.gmane.org>
2018-12-03 23:34 ` Brendan Higgins
[not found] ` <CAFd5g45+MAVaSW8HN9x57Y8Um=TV1Oa=-K8yExPBS-4KjLyciQ-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2018-12-03 23:46 ` Luis Chamberlain
[not found] ` <20181203234628.GR28501-dAjH6bxAqesAS62YNPtMr3dQhYtBYE6JAL8bYrjMMd8@public.gmane.org>
2018-12-04 0:44 ` Brendan Higgins
2018-11-30 3:41 ` Luis Chamberlain
2018-12-03 23:37 ` Brendan Higgins
2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 09/19] kunit: test: add the concept of assertions Brendan Higgins
2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 11/19] kunit: add Python libraries for handing KUnit config and kernel Brendan Higgins
2018-11-29 13:54 ` Kieran Bingham
[not found] ` <841cf4ae-501b-05ae-5863-a51010709b67-ryLnwIuWjnjg/C1BVhZhaw@public.gmane.org>
2018-12-03 23:48 ` Brendan Higgins
2018-12-04 20:47 ` Luis Chamberlain
2018-12-06 12:32 ` Kieran Bingham
2018-12-06 15:37 ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-12-07 11:30 ` Kieran Bingham
2018-12-11 14:09 ` Petr Mladek
2018-12-11 14:41 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-12-11 17:01 ` Anton Ivanov
2019-02-09 0:40 ` Brendan Higgins
2018-12-07 1:05 ` Luis Chamberlain
2018-12-07 18:35 ` Kent Overstreet
2018-11-30 3:44 ` Luis Chamberlain
2018-12-03 23:50 ` Brendan Higgins
2018-12-04 20:48 ` Luis Chamberlain
2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 12/19] kunit: add KUnit wrapper script and simple output parser Brendan Higgins
2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 13/19] kunit: improve output from python wrapper Brendan Higgins
2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 14/19] Documentation: kunit: add documentation for KUnit Brendan Higgins
2018-11-29 13:56 ` Kieran Bingham
2018-11-30 3:45 ` Luis Chamberlain
[not found] ` <20181130034525.GP18410-dAjH6bxAqesAS62YNPtMr3dQhYtBYE6JAL8bYrjMMd8@public.gmane.org>
2018-12-03 23:53 ` Brendan Higgins
2018-12-06 12:16 ` Kieran Bingham
2019-02-09 0:56 ` Brendan Higgins
2019-02-11 12:16 ` Kieran Bingham
2019-02-12 22:10 ` Brendan Higgins
2019-02-13 21:55 ` Kieran Bingham
2019-02-14 0:17 ` Brendan Higgins
2019-02-14 17:26 ` Luis Chamberlain
2019-02-14 22:07 ` Brendan Higgins
2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 15/19] MAINTAINERS: add entry for KUnit the unit testing framework Brendan Higgins
2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 17/19] of: unittest: migrate tests to run on KUnit Brendan Higgins
2018-11-28 20:56 ` Rob Herring
2018-11-30 0:39 ` Randy Dunlap
[not found] ` <18814973-8f0a-4647-a097-fcc3dc0b3cd3-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org>
2018-12-04 0:13 ` Brendan Higgins
2018-12-04 13:40 ` Rob Herring
[not found] ` <CAL_JsqL_PivQbrJFEusdKAy-2EQtKL3OHbmyYSK9bzuTOQegqA-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2018-12-05 23:42 ` Brendan Higgins
2018-12-07 0:41 ` Rob Herring
2018-12-04 0:08 ` Brendan Higgins
2019-02-13 1:44 ` Brendan Higgins
2019-02-14 20:10 ` Rob Herring
2019-02-14 21:52 ` Brendan Higgins
2019-02-18 22:56 ` Frank Rowand
2019-02-28 0:29 ` Brendan Higgins [this message]
2018-12-04 10:56 ` Frank Rowand
2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 18/19] of: unittest: split out a couple of test cases from unittest Brendan Higgins
2018-12-04 10:58 ` Frank Rowand
2018-12-05 23:54 ` Brendan Higgins
2019-02-14 23:57 ` Frank Rowand
2019-02-15 0:56 ` Brendan Higgins
2019-02-15 2:05 ` Frank Rowand
2019-02-15 10:56 ` Brendan Higgins
2019-02-18 22:25 ` Frank Rowand
2019-02-20 20:44 ` Frank Rowand
2019-02-20 20:47 ` Frank Rowand
2019-02-28 3:52 ` Brendan Higgins
2019-03-22 0:22 ` Frank Rowand
2019-03-22 1:30 ` Brendan Higgins
2019-03-22 1:47 ` Frank Rowand
2019-03-25 22:15 ` Brendan Higgins
2019-09-20 16:57 ` Rob Herring
2019-09-21 23:57 ` Frank Rowand
2019-03-22 1:34 ` Frank Rowand
2019-03-25 22:18 ` Brendan Higgins
2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 19/19] of: unittest: split up some super large test cases Brendan Higgins
2018-11-28 19:36 ` [RFC v3 16/19] arch: um: make UML unflatten device tree when testing Brendan Higgins
2018-11-28 21:16 ` Rob Herring
[not found] ` <CAL_JsqK5cG=QzMBFSZ31_-3ujnxqxv=jj3XYajbRLT7yWYZbfw-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2018-12-04 0:00 ` Brendan Higgins
2018-11-30 3:46 ` Luis Chamberlain
2018-12-04 0:02 ` Brendan Higgins
2018-12-04 10:52 ` [RFC v3 00/19] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework Frank Rowand
2018-12-04 11:40 ` Frank Rowand
2018-12-04 13:49 ` Rob Herring
2018-12-05 23:10 ` Brendan Higgins
2019-03-22 0:27 ` Frank Rowand
2019-03-25 22:04 ` 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='CAFd5g45GjG871ynfMADN+4zmecfARCk2ribY7MsMSc4=QkNqgQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=brendanhiggins@google.com \
--cc=brakmo@fb.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=frowand.list@gmail.com \
--cc=jdike@addtoit.com \
--cc=joel@jms.id.au \
--cc=kieran.bingham@ideasonboard.com \
--cc=knut.omang@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org \
--cc=richard@nod.at \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).