linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v5 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: <CANpmjNPsACW1mZmkWiCSeXfvAGaxAS5sHtYMu0-DfE7ec2pFMA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 6 Nov 2020 19:45:58 +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 v5 1/2] kunit: Support for Parameterized Testing

On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 19:28, Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Implementation of support for parameterized testing in KUnit.
> This approach requires the creation of a test case using the
> KUNIT_CASE_PARAM macro that accepts a generator function as input.
> This generator function should return the next parameter given the
> previous parameter in parameterized tests. It also provides
> a macro to generate common-case generators.
>
> Signed-off-by: Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@...il.com>
> Co-developed-by: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
[...]
> -       kunit_suite_for_each_test_case(suite, test_case)
> -               kunit_run_case_catch_errors(suite, test_case);
> +       kunit_suite_for_each_test_case(suite, test_case) {
> +               struct kunit test = { .param_value = NULL, .param_index = 0 };
> +               bool test_success = true;
> +
> +               if (test_case->generate_params)
> +                       test.param_value = test_case->generate_params(NULL);
> +
> +               do {
> +                       kunit_run_case_catch_errors(suite, test_case, &test);
> +                       test_success &= test_case->success;
> +
> +                       if (test_case->generate_params) {
> +                               kunit_log(KERN_INFO, &test,
> +                                       KUNIT_SUBTEST_INDENT
> +                                       "# %s: param-%d %s",
> +                                       test_case->name, test.param_index,
> +                                       kunit_status_to_string(test.success));

Sorry, I still found something. The patch I sent had this aligned with
the '(', whereas when I apply this patch it no longer is aligned. Why?

I see the rest of the file also aligns arguments with opening '(', so
I think your change is inconsistent.

Thanks,
-- Marco