[v3,1/1] lib: Convert UUID runtime test to KUnit
diff mbox series

Message ID 20210610163959.71634-2-andrealmeid@collabora.com
State New, archived
Headers show
Series
  • lib: Convert UUID runtime test to KUnit
Related show

Commit Message

André Almeida June 10, 2021, 4:39 p.m. UTC
Remove custom functions for testing and use KUnit framework. Keep the
tested functions and test data the same.

Current test threat (g/u)uid_parse and (g/u)uid_equal as different test
cases. Make both functions being part of the same test case, given the
dependency regarding their results. This reduces the tests cases from 6
cases to 4, while keeping the test coverage the same. Given that we have
3 strings for each test case, current test output notifies 18 tests
results, and the KUnit output announces 12 results.

Signed-off-by: André Almeida <andrealmeid@collabora.com>
---
 lib/Kconfig.debug |  11 +++-
 lib/Makefile      |   2 +-
 lib/test_uuid.c   | 137 +++++++++++++++++++---------------------------
 3 files changed, 67 insertions(+), 83 deletions(-)

Comments

Christoph Hellwig June 14, 2021, 6:42 a.m. UTC | #1
> +config UUID_KUNIT_TEST
> +	tristate "Unit test for UUID" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
> +	depends on KUNIT
> +	default KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
> +	help
> +	  This builds the UUID unit test.

Does this first help line really add any value if we have this second
line:

> +	  Tests parsing functions for UUID/GUID strings.

?

> +	  If unsure, say N.

Not specific to this case, but IMHO we can drop this line for all kunit
tests as it is completely obvious.

> @@ -354,5 +353,6 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_LIST_KUNIT_TEST) += list-test.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_LINEAR_RANGES_TEST) += test_linear_ranges.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_BITS_TEST) += test_bits.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_CMDLINE_KUNIT_TEST) += cmdline_kunit.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_UUID_KUNIT_TEST) += test_uuid.o

Another meta-comment on the kunit tests:  Wouldn't it make more sense
to name them all as CONFIG_KUNIT_TEST_FOO to allow for easier grepping?

> -struct test_uuid_data {
> +struct test_data {
>  	const char *uuid;
>  	guid_t le;
>  	uuid_t be;
>  };
>  
> -static const struct test_uuid_data test_uuid_test_data[] = {
> +static const struct test_data correct_data[] = {

What is the reason for these renames?  Is this a pattern used for
other kunit tests?

> +static void uuid_correct_le(struct kunit *test)
>  {
> +	guid_t le;
> +	const struct test_data *data = (const struct test_data *)(test->param_value);

Overly long line.  But as far as I can tell there is no need for the
case that causes this mess anyway given that param_value is a
"const void *".

Same for all the other instances of this.

> +static void uuid_wrong_le(struct kunit *test)
>  {
>  	guid_t le;
> +	const char **data = (const char **)(test->param_value);

No need for the second pair of braces.  Same for various other instances.
Daniel Latypov June 14, 2021, 4:55 p.m. UTC | #2
On Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 11:42 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
>
> > +config UUID_KUNIT_TEST
> > +     tristate "Unit test for UUID" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
> > +     depends on KUNIT
> > +     default KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
> > +     help
> > +       This builds the UUID unit test.
>
> Does this first help line really add any value if we have this second
> line:
>
> > +       Tests parsing functions for UUID/GUID strings.
>
> ?
>
> > +       If unsure, say N.
>
> Not specific to this case, but IMHO we can drop this line for all kunit
> tests as it is completely obvious.
>
> > @@ -354,5 +353,6 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_LIST_KUNIT_TEST) += list-test.o
> >  obj-$(CONFIG_LINEAR_RANGES_TEST) += test_linear_ranges.o
> >  obj-$(CONFIG_BITS_TEST) += test_bits.o
> >  obj-$(CONFIG_CMDLINE_KUNIT_TEST) += cmdline_kunit.o
> > +obj-$(CONFIG_UUID_KUNIT_TEST) += test_uuid.o
>
> Another meta-comment on the kunit tests:  Wouldn't it make more sense
> to name them all as CONFIG_KUNIT_TEST_FOO to allow for easier grepping?

But putting them in a "kunit namespace" by prefixing them as such
would be misleading, IMO.
The tests live adjacent to the code they test and are owned by the
same maintainers, or at least that's the intent.

And if the goal is just to find configs, then I don't see much
difference between "config.*KUNIT_TEST" and "config KUNIT_TEST.*"

>
> > -struct test_uuid_data {
> > +struct test_data {
> >       const char *uuid;
> >       guid_t le;
> >       uuid_t be;
> >  };
> >
> > -static const struct test_uuid_data test_uuid_test_data[] = {
> > +static const struct test_data correct_data[] = {
>
> What is the reason for these renames?  Is this a pattern used for
> other kunit tests?

No, this is not a pattern.
The structs can be renamed back.

>
> > +static void uuid_correct_le(struct kunit *test)
> >  {
> > +     guid_t le;
> > +     const struct test_data *data = (const struct test_data *)(test->param_value);
>
> Overly long line.  But as far as I can tell there is no need for the
> case that causes this mess anyway given that param_value is a
> "const void *".

There is no need for the cast or the brace, yes.
This is my fault.

The documentation has both since I had thought that would make how it
works more clear:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/dev-tools/kunit/usage.html#parameterized-testing
I don't really understand my past thought process...

>
> Same for all the other instances of this.
>
> > +static void uuid_wrong_le(struct kunit *test)
> >  {
> >       guid_t le;
> > +     const char **data = (const char **)(test->param_value);
>
> No need for the second pair of braces.  Same for various other instances.
André Almeida June 14, 2021, 9:08 p.m. UTC | #3
Às 13:55 de 14/06/21, Daniel Latypov escreveu:
> On Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 11:42 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
>>
>>> +config UUID_KUNIT_TEST
>>> +     tristate "Unit test for UUID" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
>>> +     depends on KUNIT
>>> +     default KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
>>> +     help
>>> +       This builds the UUID unit test.
>>
>> Does this first help line really add any value if we have this second
>> line:
>>
>>> +       Tests parsing functions for UUID/GUID strings.
>>
>> ?
>>
>>> +       If unsure, say N.
>>
>> Not specific to this case, but IMHO we can drop this line for all kunit
>> tests as it is completely obvious.
>>
>>> @@ -354,5 +353,6 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_LIST_KUNIT_TEST) += list-test.o
>>>  obj-$(CONFIG_LINEAR_RANGES_TEST) += test_linear_ranges.o
>>>  obj-$(CONFIG_BITS_TEST) += test_bits.o
>>>  obj-$(CONFIG_CMDLINE_KUNIT_TEST) += cmdline_kunit.o
>>> +obj-$(CONFIG_UUID_KUNIT_TEST) += test_uuid.o
>>
>> Another meta-comment on the kunit tests:  Wouldn't it make more sense
>> to name them all as CONFIG_KUNIT_TEST_FOO to allow for easier grepping?
> 
> But putting them in a "kunit namespace" by prefixing them as such
> would be misleading, IMO.
> The tests live adjacent to the code they test and are owned by the
> same maintainers, or at least that's the intent.
> 
> And if the goal is just to find configs, then I don't see much
> difference between "config.*KUNIT_TEST" and "config KUNIT_TEST.*"
> 
>>
>>> -struct test_uuid_data {
>>> +struct test_data {
>>>       const char *uuid;
>>>       guid_t le;
>>>       uuid_t be;
>>>  };
>>>
>>> -static const struct test_uuid_data test_uuid_test_data[] = {
>>> +static const struct test_data correct_data[] = {
>>
>> What is the reason for these renames?  Is this a pattern used for
>> other kunit tests?
> 
> No, this is not a pattern.
> The structs can be renamed back.
> 

The idea behind this renaming is to be more explicit about what this
data is about: correct UUIDs inputs.

>>
>>> +static void uuid_correct_le(struct kunit *test)
>>>  {
>>> +     guid_t le;
>>> +     const struct test_data *data = (const struct test_data *)(test->param_value);
>>
>> Overly long line.  But as far as I can tell there is no need for the
>> case that causes this mess anyway given that param_value is a
>> "const void *".
> 
> There is no need for the cast or the brace, yes.
> This is my fault.
> 
> The documentation has both since I had thought that would make how it
> works more clear:
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/dev-tools/kunit/usage.html#parameterized-testing
> I don't really understand my past thought process...
> 

Ok, I'll change my code to remove the cast and braces. I can also send a
patch to rework this part of documentation.

>>
>> Same for all the other instances of this.
>>
>>> +static void uuid_wrong_le(struct kunit *test)
>>>  {
>>>       guid_t le;
>>> +     const char **data = (const char **)(test->param_value);
>>
>> No need for the second pair of braces.  Same for various other instances.

Patch
diff mbox series

diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug
index 678c13967580..1d879197f303 100644
--- a/lib/Kconfig.debug
+++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug
@@ -2188,8 +2188,15 @@  config TEST_BITMAP
 
 	  If unsure, say N.
 
-config TEST_UUID
-	tristate "Test functions located in the uuid module at runtime"
+config UUID_KUNIT_TEST
+	tristate "Unit test for UUID" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
+	depends on KUNIT
+	default KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
+	help
+	  This builds the UUID unit test.
+	  Tests parsing functions for UUID/GUID strings.
+
+	  If unsure, say N.
 
 config TEST_XARRAY
 	tristate "Test the XArray code at runtime"
diff --git a/lib/Makefile b/lib/Makefile
index 2cc359ec1fdd..cc19048961c0 100644
--- a/lib/Makefile
+++ b/lib/Makefile
@@ -85,7 +85,6 @@  obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_STATIC_KEYS) += test_static_key_base.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_PRINTF) += test_printf.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_BITMAP) += test_bitmap.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_STRSCPY) += test_strscpy.o
-obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_UUID) += test_uuid.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_XARRAY) += test_xarray.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_PARMAN) += test_parman.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_KMOD) += test_kmod.o
@@ -354,5 +353,6 @@  obj-$(CONFIG_LIST_KUNIT_TEST) += list-test.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_LINEAR_RANGES_TEST) += test_linear_ranges.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_BITS_TEST) += test_bits.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_CMDLINE_KUNIT_TEST) += cmdline_kunit.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_UUID_KUNIT_TEST) += test_uuid.o
 
 obj-$(CONFIG_GENERIC_LIB_DEVMEM_IS_ALLOWED) += devmem_is_allowed.o
diff --git a/lib/test_uuid.c b/lib/test_uuid.c
index cd819c397dc7..65394ec5501e 100644
--- a/lib/test_uuid.c
+++ b/lib/test_uuid.c
@@ -1,21 +1,20 @@ 
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-or-later OR BSD-2-Clause)
 /*
- * Test cases for lib/uuid.c module.
+ * Unit tests for lib/uuid.c module.
+ *
+ * Copyright 2016 Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
+ * Copyright 2021 André Almeida <andrealmeid@riseup.net>
  */
-#define pr_fmt(fmt) KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt
-
-#include <linux/init.h>
-#include <linux/kernel.h>
-#include <linux/module.h>
-#include <linux/string.h>
+#include <kunit/test.h>
 #include <linux/uuid.h>
 
-struct test_uuid_data {
+struct test_data {
 	const char *uuid;
 	guid_t le;
 	uuid_t be;
 };
 
-static const struct test_uuid_data test_uuid_test_data[] = {
+static const struct test_data correct_data[] = {
 	{
 		.uuid = "c33f4995-3701-450e-9fbf-206a2e98e576",
 		.le = GUID_INIT(0xc33f4995, 0x3701, 0x450e, 0x9f, 0xbf, 0x20, 0x6a, 0x2e, 0x98, 0xe5, 0x76),
@@ -33,101 +32,79 @@  static const struct test_uuid_data test_uuid_test_data[] = {
 	},
 };
 
-static const char * const test_uuid_wrong_data[] = {
+static const char * const wrong_data[] = {
 	"c33f4995-3701-450e-9fbf206a2e98e576 ",	/* no hyphen(s) */
 	"64b4371c-77c1-48f9-8221-29f054XX023b",	/* invalid character(s) */
 	"0cb4ddff-a545-4401-9d06-688af53e",	/* not enough data */
 };
 
-static unsigned total_tests __initdata;
-static unsigned failed_tests __initdata;
-
-static void __init test_uuid_failed(const char *prefix, bool wrong, bool be,
-				    const char *data, const char *actual)
+static void uuid_correct_le(struct kunit *test)
 {
-	pr_err("%s test #%u %s %s data: '%s'\n",
-	       prefix,
-	       total_tests,
-	       wrong ? "passed on wrong" : "failed on",
-	       be ? "BE" : "LE",
-	       data);
-	if (actual && *actual)
-		pr_err("%s test #%u actual data: '%s'\n",
-		       prefix,
-		       total_tests,
-		       actual);
-	failed_tests++;
+	guid_t le;
+	const struct test_data *data = (const struct test_data *)(test->param_value);
+
+	KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ_MSG(test, guid_parse(data->uuid, &le), 0,
+			    "failed to parse '%s'", data->uuid);
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE_MSG(test, guid_equal(&data->le, &le),
+			      "'%s' should be equal to %pUl", data->uuid, &le);
 }
 
-static void __init test_uuid_test(const struct test_uuid_data *data)
+static void uuid_correct_be(struct kunit *test)
 {
-	guid_t le;
 	uuid_t be;
-	char buf[48];
-
-	/* LE */
-	total_tests++;
-	if (guid_parse(data->uuid, &le))
-		test_uuid_failed("conversion", false, false, data->uuid, NULL);
-
-	total_tests++;
-	if (!guid_equal(&data->le, &le)) {
-		sprintf(buf, "%pUl", &le);
-		test_uuid_failed("cmp", false, false, data->uuid, buf);
-	}
-
-	/* BE */
-	total_tests++;
-	if (uuid_parse(data->uuid, &be))
-		test_uuid_failed("conversion", false, true, data->uuid, NULL);
-
-	total_tests++;
-	if (!uuid_equal(&data->be, &be)) {
-		sprintf(buf, "%pUb", &be);
-		test_uuid_failed("cmp", false, true, data->uuid, buf);
-	}
+	const struct test_data *data = (const struct test_data *)(test->param_value);
+
+	KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ_MSG(test, uuid_parse(data->uuid, &be), 0,
+			    "failed to parse '%s'", data->uuid);
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE_MSG(test, uuid_equal(&data->be, &be),
+			      "'%s' should be equal to %pUl", data->uuid, &be);
 }
 
-static void __init test_uuid_wrong(const char *data)
+static void uuid_wrong_le(struct kunit *test)
 {
 	guid_t le;
-	uuid_t be;
-
-	/* LE */
-	total_tests++;
-	if (!guid_parse(data, &le))
-		test_uuid_failed("negative", true, false, data, NULL);
+	const char **data = (const char **)(test->param_value);
 
-	/* BE */
-	total_tests++;
-	if (!uuid_parse(data, &be))
-		test_uuid_failed("negative", true, true, data, NULL);
+	KUNIT_ASSERT_NE_MSG(test, guid_parse(*data, &le), 0,
+			    "parsing of '%s' should've failed", *data);
 }
 
-static int __init test_uuid_init(void)
+static void uuid_wrong_be(struct kunit *test)
 {
-	unsigned int i;
-
-	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(test_uuid_test_data); i++)
-		test_uuid_test(&test_uuid_test_data[i]);
-
-	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(test_uuid_wrong_data); i++)
-		test_uuid_wrong(test_uuid_wrong_data[i]);
+	uuid_t be;
+	const char **data = (const char **)(test->param_value);
 
-	if (failed_tests == 0)
-		pr_info("all %u tests passed\n", total_tests);
-	else
-		pr_err("failed %u out of %u tests\n", failed_tests, total_tests);
+	KUNIT_ASSERT_NE_MSG(test, uuid_parse(*data, &be), 0,
+			    "parsing of '%s' should've failed", *data);
+}
 
-	return failed_tests ? -EINVAL : 0;
+static void case_to_desc_correct(const struct test_data *t, char *desc)
+{
+	strcpy(desc, t->uuid);
 }
-module_init(test_uuid_init);
 
-static void __exit test_uuid_exit(void)
+KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM(correct, correct_data, case_to_desc_correct);
+
+static void case_to_desc_wrong(const char * const *s, char *desc)
 {
-	/* do nothing */
+	strcpy(desc, *s);
 }
-module_exit(test_uuid_exit);
+
+KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM(wrong, wrong_data, case_to_desc_wrong);
+
+static struct kunit_case uuid_test_cases[] = {
+	KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(uuid_correct_be, correct_gen_params),
+	KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(uuid_correct_le, correct_gen_params),
+	KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(uuid_wrong_be, wrong_gen_params),
+	KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(uuid_wrong_le, wrong_gen_params),
+	{}
+};
+
+static struct kunit_suite uuid_test_suite = {
+	.name = "uuid",
+	.test_cases = uuid_test_cases,
+};
+kunit_test_suite(uuid_test_suite);
 
 MODULE_AUTHOR("Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>");
 MODULE_LICENSE("Dual BSD/GPL");