From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A70B8C433EF for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 17:28:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1344193AbiAKR21 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jan 2022 12:28:27 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:41830 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1344286AbiAKR2L (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jan 2022 12:28:11 -0500 Received: from mail-ed1-x52c.google.com (mail-ed1-x52c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52c]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08A1EC034008 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 09:27:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ed1-x52c.google.com with SMTP id b13so16747200edn.0 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 09:27:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=D7/rKBF2z2+95TZSmwkbl9A0yWqNIgVx8BXtOi49ZC4=; b=mLGm/drGnGgAWf9cmEbSUWEBikdzDIHuCPZvbz/sQlEpgdrdawiQ547uQ6tW5GZaSX k8QLAWCa1jhQjx5/DI16XYb/ZH/kVi0cqvhUVyyXRY+3KB31dPmJG2QMAp5VcLMrxr0R 58VTMigyBQjD0BkwJzTomlOs0M5M45/bnzp2JHPOI6vbzZG04xd9CdE850St20UFEWDO 8eBCcL+iMS8GVBkgCOKzpv5RcUVZh3HcAoc1mKRQfcA7jgLpnhFLFFMjTbRZe7q1Y9zH k+094CQHyjw9qzjV3jkdChNm8ktqZqnwgwVRJqbKvJiib116JOUN1w5gzrF8rU0JydT1 P0kw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=D7/rKBF2z2+95TZSmwkbl9A0yWqNIgVx8BXtOi49ZC4=; b=b91AOXJBEgeZNbrTMtKmC2qTkA4t5pKXmNF5xO368rxkpkT3ThamLnv3nV+AJYIu32 y8ETtQxGML06JL7BFXKjcPjaKzK22p/9uzZDMiB1jkxBsZIUmCw84p7R3KUAdiH2Pea9 nMvTgrCy0puXzNOqNtq//G5to+lZv81jkMdMnhJL+BtoXrVrxavOkGqifCG4YoPtMS5z 31cAZf7ljWxbsVEGN9hckUKKYUDkQ/ukTyg3sLSNAt2mcSdyJrzEKEOJ1+XXxWuswYhZ mBIODHWW+uGBtXq35le0UwPXKWY6DzUStBqOqInc64KideQNyr7Vxw7ebCPHHB2ay/tF LanQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530u1RddW7GDDp0h3OcPsGh7hkp95GdqzG9PKkFpZidA1sYSWf9Z LN0CTulic+cruF3LrJD6cdUOuZ0qqlfReQbeCj4i2A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyJ+bJwvfUeX3tH6S43WumwEqoUU7jQ6fcLxmrchpO0xomGv5fEyPtwN/Qhz1J0B5euWfL+JdHUUiHZef2F/B0= X-Received: by 2002:aa7:dc53:: with SMTP id g19mr5308767edu.294.1641922057283; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 09:27:37 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220108012304.1049587-1-dlatypov@google.com> <20220108012304.1049587-2-dlatypov@google.com> In-Reply-To: From: Daniel Latypov Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2022 09:27:26 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] kunit: add example test case showing off all the expect macros To: David Gow Cc: Brendan Higgins , Linux Kernel Mailing List , KUnit Development , "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" , Shuah Khan , Linus Torvalds Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 10:51 PM David Gow wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 9:23 AM Daniel Latypov wrote: > > > > Currently, these macros are only really documented near the bottom of > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/dev-tools/kunit/api/test.html#c.KUNIT_FAIL. > > > > E.g. it's likely someone might just not realize that > > KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ() exists and instead use KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(strcmp()) > > or similar. > > > > This can also serve as a basic smoketest that the KUnit assert machinery > > still works for all the macros. > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov > > --- > > I think this is a great idea. I will note that this definitely isn't a > full test _of_ the assertion macros (in that it only exercises the > success case), so keeping it as an example is probably best. > > A few possible ideas below, but I'm happy enough with this as-is regardless. Applied the ideas locally. It led to this diffstat lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++----------------------- 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) So it's now a bit shorter and 8 of the added lines are new comments. > > Reviewed-by: David Gow > > > lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c b/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c > > index 51099b0ca29c..182a64c12541 100644 > > --- a/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c > > +++ b/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c > > @@ -69,6 +69,51 @@ static void example_mark_skipped_test(struct kunit *test) > > /* This line should run */ > > kunit_info(test, "You should see this line."); > > } > > + > > +/* > > + * This test shows off all the KUNIT_EXPECT macros. > > + */ > > +static void example_all_expect_macros_test(struct kunit *test) > > +{ > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, true); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, false); > > _Maybe_ it's worth having a comment for each of these groups ('boolean > assertions', 'integer assertions', 'pointer assertions', etc)? Good idea, done. > > > + > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 1, 1); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_GE(test, 1, 1); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_LE(test, 1, 1); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_NE(test, 1, 0); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_GT(test, 1, 0); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_LT(test, 0, 1); > > + > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, test); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, NULL, NULL); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_NE(test, test, NULL); > > + > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, "hi", "hi"); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_STRNEQ(test, "hi", "bye"); > > + > > + /* > > + * There are also _MSG variants of all of the above that let you include > > + * additional text on failure. > > + */ > > There are also the ASSERT vs EXPECT variations. While it may be > excessive to also include all of these, particularly in an example, it > might be worth mentioning them in a comment somewhere? I've gone ahead and added a section with one example + /* + * There are also ASSERT variants of all of the above that abort test + * execution if they fail. Useful for memory allocations, etc. + */ + KUNIT_ASSERT_GT(test, sizeof(char), 0); + > > Alternatively, if this is bloating the example too much, we could have > only one example each of the ASSERT and _MSG variants. > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE_MSG(test, true, "msg"); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, false, "msg"); > > Part of me feels that a better message than "msg" would be nice to > have here, but I can't think of a good one. Maybe (particularly for > the less obvious integer/string/pointer macros below), having a > description of what's being asserted? I've gone ahead and added truncated this down to one example + KUNIT_EXPECT_GT_MSG(test, sizeof(int), 0, "Your ints are 0-bit?!"); + KUNIT_ASSERT_GT_MSG(test, sizeof(int), 0, "Your ints are 0-bit?!"); > > > > > + > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, 1, 1, "msg"); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_GE_MSG(test, 1, 1, "msg"); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_LE_MSG(test, 1, 1, "msg"); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_NE_MSG(test, 1, 0, "msg"); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_GT_MSG(test, 1, 0, "msg"); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_LT_MSG(test, 0, 1, "msg"); > > + > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL_MSG(test, test, "msg"); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ_MSG(test, NULL, NULL, "msg"); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_NE_MSG(test, test, NULL, "msg"); > > + > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ_MSG(test, "hi", "hi", "msg"); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_STRNEQ_MSG(test, "hi", "bye", "msg"); > > +} > > + > > /* > > * Here we make a list of all the test cases we want to add to the test suite > > * below. > > @@ -83,6 +128,7 @@ static struct kunit_case example_test_cases[] = { > > KUNIT_CASE(example_simple_test), > > KUNIT_CASE(example_skip_test), > > KUNIT_CASE(example_mark_skipped_test), > > + KUNIT_CASE(example_all_expect_macros_test), > > {} > > }; > > > > -- > > 2.34.1.575.g55b058a8bb-goog > >