Message-ID: <5c38ba07-f910-ed0a-1a75-85240effaea7@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Oct 2020 20:09:14 +0530
From:   Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@...il.com>
To:     Marco Elver <elver@...gle.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

On 27/10/20 2:33 pm, Marco Elver wrote:
> 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.
> 

Yes, this is the only place param index is used.

>>  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
> 

I will make all the suggested changes.
Thanks!

Powered by blists - more mailing lists