linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] kunit: Support for Parameterized Testing

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANpmjNMnkXLFeQU6xZNwj3bWqE4Ap47wQKkL3-0ENX+R1YoLOg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Oct 2020 10:03:43 +0100
From:   Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
To:     Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@...il.com>
Cc:     Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        skhan@...uxfoundation.org, Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>,
        "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        KUnit Development <kunit-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] kunit: Support for Parameterized Testing

I just tried to give this a spin on some of my tests and noticed some
more things (apologies for the multiple rounds of comments):

On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 at 19:36, Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@...il.com> wrote:
[...]
>  /**
>   * struct kunit_suite - describes a related collection of &struct kunit_case
> @@ -208,6 +217,15 @@ struct kunit {
>         const char *name; /* Read only after initialization! */
>         char *log; /* Points at case log after initialization */
>         struct kunit_try_catch try_catch;
> +       /* param_values points to test case parameters in parameterized tests */
> +       void *param_values;

This should be singular, i.e. "param_value", since the generator only
generates 1 value for each test. Whether or not that value is a
pointer that points to more than 1 value or is an integer etc. is
entirely test-dependent.

> +       /*
> +        * current_param stores the index of the parameter in
> +        * the array of parameters in parameterized tests.
> +        * current_param + 1 is printed to indicate the parameter
> +        * that causes the test to fail in case of test failure.
> +        */
> +       int current_param;

I think, per your comment above, this should be named "param_index".
Also, I would suggest removing the mention of "array" in the comment,
because the parameters aren't dependent on use of an array.

>         /*
>          * success starts as true, and may only be set to false during a
>          * test case; thus, it is safe to update this across multiple
> @@ -1742,4 +1760,18 @@ do {                                                                            \
>                                                 fmt,                           \
>                                                 ##__VA_ARGS__)
>
> +/**
> + * KUNIT_PARAM_GENERATOR() - Helper method for test parameter generators
> + *                          required in parameterized tests.
> + * @name:  prefix of the name for the test parameter generator function.
> + * @prev: a pointer to the previous test parameter, NULL for first parameter.
> + * @array: a user-supplied pointer to an array of test parameters.
> + */
> +#define KUNIT_PARAM_GENERATOR(name, array)                                                     \
> +       static void *name##_gen_params(void *prev)                                              \
> +       {                                                                                       \
> +               typeof((array)[0]) * __next = prev ? ((typeof(__next)) prev) + 1 : (array);     \
> +               return __next - (array) < ARRAY_SIZE((array)) ? __next : NULL;                  \
> +       }
> +
>  #endif /* _KUNIT_TEST_H */
> diff --git a/lib/kunit/test.c b/lib/kunit/test.c
> index 750704abe89a..b70ab9b12f3b 100644
> --- a/lib/kunit/test.c
> +++ b/lib/kunit/test.c
> @@ -127,6 +127,11 @@ unsigned int kunit_test_case_num(struct kunit_suite *suite,
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kunit_test_case_num);
>
> +static void kunit_print_failed_param(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +       kunit_err(test, "\n\tTest failed at parameter: %d\n", test->current_param + 1);
> +}

Is this the only place where the param index is used? It might be
helpful to show the index together with the test-case name, otherwise
we get a series of test cases in the output which are all named the
same which can be confusing.

>  static void kunit_print_string_stream(struct kunit *test,
>                                       struct string_stream *stream)
>  {
> @@ -168,6 +173,8 @@ static void kunit_fail(struct kunit *test, struct kunit_assert *assert)
>         assert->format(assert, stream);
>
>         kunit_print_string_stream(test, stream);
> +       if (test->param_values)
> +               kunit_print_failed_param(test);
>
>         WARN_ON(string_stream_destroy(stream));
>  }
> @@ -239,7 +246,18 @@ static void kunit_run_case_internal(struct kunit *test,
>                 }
>         }
>
> -       test_case->run_case(test);
> +       if (!test_case->generate_params) {
> +               test_case->run_case(test);
> +       } else {
> +               test->param_values = test_case->generate_params(NULL);
> +               test->current_param = 0;
> +
> +               while (test->param_values) {
> +                       test_case->run_case(test);
> +                       test->param_values = test_case->generate_params(test->param_values);
> +                       test->current_param++;
> +               }
> +       }
>  }

Looking forward to v4. :-)

Thanks,
-- Marco