[PATCH v1] kunit: add tests for using current KUnit test field

[PATCH v1] kunit: add tests for using current KUnit test field

[Rae Moar]

Create test suite called "kunit_current" to add test coverage for the use
of current->kunit_test, which returns the current KUnit test.

Add three test cases:
- kunit_current_kunit_test_field to test the use of current->kunit_test.

- kunit_current_get_current_test to test the method
  kunit_get_current_test(), which utilizes current->kunit_test.

- kunit_current_fail_current_test to test the method
  kunit_fail_current_test(), which utilizes current->kunit_test.

Signed-off-by: Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com>
---
 lib/kunit/kunit-test.c | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c b/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
index b63595d3e241..91984b92c916 100644
--- a/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
+++ b/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
  * Author: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
  */
 #include <kunit/test.h>
+#include <kunit/test-bug.h>
 
 #include "try-catch-impl.h"
 
@@ -532,7 +533,65 @@ static struct kunit_suite kunit_status_test_suite = {
 	.test_cases = kunit_status_test_cases,
 };
 
+static void kunit_current_kunit_test_field(struct kunit *test)
+{
+	struct kunit *current_test;
+
+	/* Check to ensure the result of current->kunit_test
+	 * is equivalent to current test.
+	 */
+	current_test = current->kunit_test;
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, current_test);
+}
+
+static void kunit_current_get_current_test(struct kunit *test)
+{
+	struct kunit *current_test1, *current_test2;
+
+	/* Check to ensure the result of kunit_get_current_test()
+	 * is equivalent to current test.
+	 */
+	current_test1 = kunit_get_current_test();
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, current_test1);
+
+	/* Check to ensure the result of kunit_get_current_test()
+	 * is equivalent to current->kunit_test.
+	 */
+	current_test2 = current->kunit_test;
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, current_test1, current_test2);
+}
+
+static void kunit_current_fail_current_test(struct kunit *test)
+{
+	struct kunit fake;
+
+	/* Initialize fake test and set as current->kunit_test. */
+	kunit_init_test(&fake, "fake test", NULL);
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake.status, KUNIT_SUCCESS);
+	current->kunit_test = &fake;
+
+	/* Fail current test and expect status of fake test to be failed. */
+	kunit_fail_current_test("This test is supposed to fail.");
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake.status, (enum kunit_status)KUNIT_FAILURE);
+
+	/* Reset current->kunit_test to current test. */
+	current->kunit_test = test;
+}
+
+static struct kunit_case kunit_current_test_cases[] = {
+	KUNIT_CASE(kunit_current_kunit_test_field),
+	KUNIT_CASE(kunit_current_get_current_test),
+	KUNIT_CASE(kunit_current_fail_current_test),
+	{}
+};
+
+static struct kunit_suite kunit_current_test_suite = {
+	.name = "kunit_current",
+	.test_cases = kunit_current_test_cases,
+};
+
 kunit_test_suites(&kunit_try_catch_test_suite, &kunit_resource_test_suite,
-		  &kunit_log_test_suite, &kunit_status_test_suite);
+		  &kunit_log_test_suite, &kunit_status_test_suite,
+		  &kunit_current_test_suite);
 
 MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");

base-commit: 7232282dd47cce6a780c9414bd9baccf232c7686
-- 
2.40.0.348.gf938b09366-goog

Re: [PATCH v1] kunit: add tests for using current KUnit test field

[Daniel Latypov]

I've got a few minor comments below, but this otherwise looks good.
I like the idea of testing knuit_fail_current_test().


On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 3:05 PM Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com> wrote:
>
> +static void kunit_current_kunit_test_field(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +       struct kunit *current_test;
> +
> +       /* Check to ensure the result of current->kunit_test
> +        * is equivalent to current test.
> +        */
> +       current_test = current->kunit_test;
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, current_test);

Perhaps we can combine this and the next test case down to
static void kunit_current_test(struct kunit *test) {
  /* There are two different ways of getting the current test */
  KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, current->kunit_test);
  KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, kunit_get_current_test());
}
?

> +}
> +
> +static void kunit_current_get_current_test(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +       struct kunit *current_test1, *current_test2;
> +
> +       /* Check to ensure the result of kunit_get_current_test()
> +        * is equivalent to current test.
> +        */
> +       current_test1 = kunit_get_current_test();
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, current_test1);
> +
> +       /* Check to ensure the result of kunit_get_current_test()
> +        * is equivalent to current->kunit_test.
> +        */
> +       current_test2 = current->kunit_test;
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, current_test1, current_test2);

> +}
> +
> +static void kunit_current_fail_current_test(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +       struct kunit fake;
> +
> +       /* Initialize fake test and set as current->kunit_test. */

Nit: I think the code is self-explanatory enough that we can drop this comment.

> +       kunit_init_test(&fake, "fake test", NULL);
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake.status, KUNIT_SUCCESS);
> +       current->kunit_test = &fake;
> +
> +       /* Fail current test and expect status of fake test to be failed. */

Nit: I think this comment could also be dropped or maybe shortened to
  kunit_fail_current_test("This should make `fake` fail");

or
  /* Now kunit_fail_current_test() should modify `fake`, not `test` */
  kunit_fail_current_test("This should make `fake` fail");

> +       kunit_fail_current_test("This test is supposed to fail.");
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake.status, (enum kunit_status)KUNIT_FAILURE);
> +

Hmm, should we try calling
  kunit_cleanup(&fake);
?

Right now this does resource cleanups, but we might have other state
to cleanup for our `fake` test object in the future.

Daniel

Re: [PATCH v1] kunit: add tests for using current KUnit test field

[David Gow]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3527 bytes --]

On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 at 06:21, 'Daniel Latypov' via KUnit Development
<kunit-dev@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> I've got a few minor comments below, but this otherwise looks good.
> I like the idea of testing knuit_fail_current_test().
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 3:05 PM Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > +static void kunit_current_kunit_test_field(struct kunit *test)
> > +{
> > +       struct kunit *current_test;
> > +
> > +       /* Check to ensure the result of current->kunit_test
> > +        * is equivalent to current test.
> > +        */
> > +       current_test = current->kunit_test;
> > +       KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, current_test);
>
> Perhaps we can combine this and the next test case down to
> static void kunit_current_test(struct kunit *test) {
>   /* There are two different ways of getting the current test */
>   KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, current->kunit_test);
>   KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, kunit_get_current_test());
> }
> ?
>

Agreed: checking current->kunit_test twice feels a bit odd.


> > +}
> > +
> > +static void kunit_current_get_current_test(struct kunit *test)
> > +{
> > +       struct kunit *current_test1, *current_test2;
> > +
> > +       /* Check to ensure the result of kunit_get_current_test()
> > +        * is equivalent to current test.
> > +        */
> > +       current_test1 = kunit_get_current_test();
> > +       KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, current_test1);
> > +
> > +       /* Check to ensure the result of kunit_get_current_test()
> > +        * is equivalent to current->kunit_test.
> > +        */
> > +       current_test2 = current->kunit_test;
> > +       KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, current_test1, current_test2);
>
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void kunit_current_fail_current_test(struct kunit *test)
> > +{
> > +       struct kunit fake;
> > +
> > +       /* Initialize fake test and set as current->kunit_test. */
>
> Nit: I think the code is self-explanatory enough that we can drop this comment.
>
> > +       kunit_init_test(&fake, "fake test", NULL);
> > +       KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake.status, KUNIT_SUCCESS);
> > +       current->kunit_test = &fake;
> > +
> > +       /* Fail current test and expect status of fake test to be failed. */
>
> Nit: I think this comment could also be dropped or maybe shortened to
>   kunit_fail_current_test("This should make `fake` fail");
>
> or
>   /* Now kunit_fail_current_test() should modify `fake`, not `test` */
>   kunit_fail_current_test("This should make `fake` fail");
>
> > +       kunit_fail_current_test("This test is supposed to fail.");
> > +       KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake.status, (enum kunit_status)KUNIT_FAILURE);
> > +
>
> Hmm, should we try calling
>   kunit_cleanup(&fake);
> ?
>
> Right now this does resource cleanups, but we might have other state
> to cleanup for our `fake` test object in the future.

I could go either way here. We currently don't do this with the other
status tests (kunit_status), only with the resource ones.
But it doesn't hurt to add it...

>
> Daniel
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "KUnit Development" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kunit-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kunit-dev/CAGS_qxqNwVcymkG6-8Kv72oZc9aDqjFjBBmjr%2Bf%2BmOVKT1bGvA%40mail.gmail.com.

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4003 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH v1] kunit: add tests for using current KUnit test field

[Rae Moar]

On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 6:21 PM 'Daniel Latypov' via KUnit Development
<kunit-dev@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> I've got a few minor comments below, but this otherwise looks good.
> I like the idea of testing knuit_fail_current_test().
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 3:05 PM Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > +static void kunit_current_kunit_test_field(struct kunit *test)
> > +{
> > +       struct kunit *current_test;
> > +
> > +       /* Check to ensure the result of current->kunit_test
> > +        * is equivalent to current test.
> > +        */
> > +       current_test = current->kunit_test;
> > +       KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, current_test);
>
> Perhaps we can combine this and the next test case down to
> static void kunit_current_test(struct kunit *test) {
>   /* There are two different ways of getting the current test */
>   KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, current->kunit_test);
>   KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, kunit_get_current_test());
> }
> ?

Hi Daniel!

Yes, I would be happy to combine these for v2. I might want to alter
that proposed comment slightly. "Two different ways" seems a bit
unclear to me. Maybe: Check results of both current->kunit_test and
kunit_get_current_test() are equivalent to current test. What do you
think? I might send out a v2 with a proposed comment.

>
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void kunit_current_get_current_test(struct kunit *test)
> > +{
> > +       struct kunit *current_test1, *current_test2;
> > +
> > +       /* Check to ensure the result of kunit_get_current_test()
> > +        * is equivalent to current test.
> > +        */
> > +       current_test1 = kunit_get_current_test();
> > +       KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, current_test1);
> > +
> > +       /* Check to ensure the result of kunit_get_current_test()
> > +        * is equivalent to current->kunit_test.
> > +        */
> > +       current_test2 = current->kunit_test;
> > +       KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, current_test1, current_test2);
>
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void kunit_current_fail_current_test(struct kunit *test)
> > +{
> > +       struct kunit fake;
> > +
> > +       /* Initialize fake test and set as current->kunit_test. */
>
> Nit: I think the code is self-explanatory enough that we can drop this comment.
>

I agree the "initialize fake test" comment is self-explanatory. But if
we keep the comment regarding resetting the current test, I think we
should mark when we set the test as a fake with a comment as well.

> > +       kunit_init_test(&fake, "fake test", NULL);
> > +       KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake.status, KUNIT_SUCCESS);
> > +       current->kunit_test = &fake;
> > +
> > +       /* Fail current test and expect status of fake test to be failed. */
>
> Nit: I think this comment could also be dropped or maybe shortened to
>   kunit_fail_current_test("This should make `fake` fail");
>

This first option seems good to me.

> or
>   /* Now kunit_fail_current_test() should modify `fake`, not `test` */
>   kunit_fail_current_test("This should make `fake` fail");
>
> > +       kunit_fail_current_test("This test is supposed to fail.");
> > +       KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake.status, (enum kunit_status)KUNIT_FAILURE);
> > +
>
> Hmm, should we try calling
>   kunit_cleanup(&fake);
> ?
>
> Right now this does resource cleanups, but we might have other state
> to cleanup for our `fake` test object in the future.
>

I would be fine to add this here if it is wanted.

Thanks Daniel for the comments!

Rae

> Daniel
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "KUnit Development" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kunit-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kunit-dev/CAGS_qxqNwVcymkG6-8Kv72oZc9aDqjFjBBmjr%2Bf%2BmOVKT1bGvA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [PATCH v1] kunit: add tests for using current KUnit test field

[Daniel Latypov]

On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 12:31 PM Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 6:21 PM 'Daniel Latypov' via KUnit Development
> <kunit-dev@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> >
> > I've got a few minor comments below, but this otherwise looks good.
> > I like the idea of testing knuit_fail_current_test().
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 3:05 PM Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > +static void kunit_current_kunit_test_field(struct kunit *test)
> > > +{
> > > +       struct kunit *current_test;
> > > +
> > > +       /* Check to ensure the result of current->kunit_test
> > > +        * is equivalent to current test.
> > > +        */
> > > +       current_test = current->kunit_test;
> > > +       KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, current_test);
> >
> > Perhaps we can combine this and the next test case down to
> > static void kunit_current_test(struct kunit *test) {
> >   /* There are two different ways of getting the current test */
> >   KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, current->kunit_test);
> >   KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, kunit_get_current_test());
> > }
> > ?
>
> Hi Daniel!
>
> Yes, I would be happy to combine these for v2. I might want to alter
> that proposed comment slightly. "Two different ways" seems a bit
> unclear to me. Maybe: Check results of both current->kunit_test and
> kunit_get_current_test() are equivalent to current test. What do you
> think? I might send out a v2 with a proposed comment.

What you went with in v2 works for me.
I'll take a look at the other changes in v2.

Thanks!
Daniel