lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Aug]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v14 01/18] kunit: test: add KUnit test runner core
    From
    Date
    On 8/23/19 12:56 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
    > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 11:32 AM shuah <shuah@kernel.org> wrote:
    >>
    >> On 8/23/19 11:54 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
    >>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 10:34 AM shuah <shuah@kernel.org> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> On 8/23/19 11:27 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
    >>>>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 10:05 AM shuah <shuah@kernel.org> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> On 8/23/19 10:48 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
    >>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 8:33 AM shuah <shuah@kernel.org> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Hi Brendan,
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> On 8/20/19 5:20 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> Add core facilities for defining unit tests; this provides a common way
    >>>>>>>>> to define test cases, functions that execute code which is under test
    >>>>>>>>> and determine whether the code under test behaves as expected; this also
    >>>>>>>>> provides a way to group together related test cases in test suites (here
    >>>>>>>>> we call them test_modules).
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Just define test cases and how to execute them for now; setting
    >>>>>>>>> expectations on code will be defined later.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
    >>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
    >>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>
    >>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
    >>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
    >>>>>>>>> ---
    >>>>>>>>> include/kunit/test.h | 179 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    >>>>>>>>> kunit/Kconfig | 17 ++++
    >>>>>>>>> kunit/Makefile | 1 +
    >>>>>>>>> kunit/test.c | 191 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    >>>>>>>>> 4 files changed, 388 insertions(+)
    >>>>>>>>> create mode 100644 include/kunit/test.h
    >>>>>>>>> create mode 100644 kunit/Kconfig
    >>>>>>>>> create mode 100644 kunit/Makefile
    >>>>>>>>> create mode 100644 kunit/test.c
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h
    >>>>>>>>> new file mode 100644
    >>>>>>>>> index 0000000000000..e0b34acb9ee4e
    >>>>>>>>> --- /dev/null
    >>>>>>>>> +++ b/include/kunit/test.h
    >>>>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,179 @@
    >>>>>>>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
    >>>>>>>>> +/*
    >>>>>>>>> + * Base unit test (KUnit) API.
    >>>>>>>>> + *
    >>>>>>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2019, Google LLC.
    >>>>>>>>> + * Author: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
    >>>>>>>>> + */
    >>>>>>>>> +
    >>>>>>>>> +#ifndef _KUNIT_TEST_H
    >>>>>>>>> +#define _KUNIT_TEST_H
    >>>>>>>>> +
    >>>>>>>>> +#include <linux/types.h>
    >>>>>>>>> +
    >>>>>>>>> +struct kunit;
    >>>>>>>>> +
    >>>>>>>>> +/**
    >>>>>>>>> + * struct kunit_case - represents an individual test case.
    >>>>>>>>> + * @run_case: the function representing the actual test case.
    >>>>>>>>> + * @name: the name of the test case.
    >>>>>>>>> + *
    >>>>>>>>> + * A test case is a function with the signature, ``void (*)(struct kunit *)``
    >>>>>>>>> + * that makes expectations (see KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE()) about code under test. Each
    >>>>>>>>> + * test case is associated with a &struct kunit_suite and will be run after the
    >>>>>>>>> + * suite's init function and followed by the suite's exit function.
    >>>>>>>>> + *
    >>>>>>>>> + * A test case should be static and should only be created with the KUNIT_CASE()
    >>>>>>>>> + * macro; additionally, every array of test cases should be terminated with an
    >>>>>>>>> + * empty test case.
    >>>>>>>>> + *
    >>>>>>>>> + * Example:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Can you fix these line continuations. It makes it very hard to read.
    >>>>>>>> Sorry for this late comment. These comments lines are longer than 80
    >>>>>>>> and wrap.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> None of the lines in this commit are over 80 characters in column
    >>>>>>> width. Some are exactly 80 characters (like above).
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> My guess is that you are seeing the diff added text (+ ), which when
    >>>>>>> you add that to a line which is exactly 80 char in length ends up
    >>>>>>> being over 80 char in email. If you apply the patch you will see that
    >>>>>>> they are only 80 chars.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> There are several comment lines in the file that are way too long.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Note that checkpatch also does not complain about any over 80 char
    >>>>>>> lines in this file.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Sorry if I am misunderstanding what you are trying to tell me. Please
    >>>>>>> confirm either way.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> WARNING: Avoid unnecessary line continuations
    >>>>>> #258: FILE: include/kunit/test.h:137:
    >>>>>> + */ \
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> total: 0 errors, 2 warnings, 388 lines checked
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Ah, okay so you don't like the warning about the line continuation.
    >>>>> That's not because it is over 80 char, but because there is a line
    >>>>> continuation after a comment. I don't really see a way to get rid of
    >>>>> it without removing the comment from inside the macro.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I put this TODO there in the first place a Luis' request, and I put it
    >>>>> in the body of the macro because this macro already had a kernel-doc
    >>>>> comment and I didn't think that an implementation detail TODO belonged
    >>>>> in the user documentation.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Go ahead fix these. It appears there are few lines that either longer
    >>>>>> than 80. In general, I keep them around 75, so it is easier read.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Sorry, the above is the only checkpatch warning other than the
    >>>>> reminder to update the MAINTAINERS file.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Are you saying you want me to go through and make all the lines fit in
    >>>>> 75 char column width? I hope not because that is going to be a pretty
    >>>>> substantial change to make.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> There are two things with these comment lines. One is checkpatch
    >>>> complaining and the other is general readability.
    >>>
    >>> So for the checkpatch warning, do you want me to move the comment out
    >>> of the macro body into the kernel-doc comment? I don't really think it
    >>> is the right place for a comment of this nature, but I think it is
    >>> probably better than dropping it entirely (I don't see how else to do
    >>> it without just removing the comment entirely).
    >>>
    >>
    >> Don't drop the comments. It makes perfect sense to turn this into a
    >> kernel-doc comment.
    >
    > I am fine with that. I will do that in a subsequent revision once we
    > figure out the column limit issue.
    >
    >> We are going back forth on this a lot. I see several lines 81+ in
    >> this file. I am at 5.3-rc5 and my commit hooks aren't happy. I am
    >> fine with it if you want to convert these to kernel-doc comments.
    >> I think it makes perfect sense.
    >
    > Okay, so this is interesting. When I look at the applied patches in my
    > local repo, I don't see any 81+ lines. So it seems that something
    > interesting is going on here.
    >
    > To be clear (sorry for the stupid question) you are seeing the issue
    > after you applied the patch, and not in the patch file itself?
    >

    I am using my normal workflow. My pre-commit check is catching this.
    Just this patch. All others are good other than the 9/18 BUG() issue.

    > Since we are still at OSS, would you mind if we meet up this afternoon
    > so I can see this issue you are seeing? I imagine we should get this
    > figured out pretty quickly.
    >

    Yeah. Would have been nice. I am not at oss today.

    thanks,
    -- Shuah


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2019-08-23 21:05    [W:2.380 / U:0.388 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site