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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 6 Nov 2020 20:05:23 +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 20:00, Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On 07/11/20 12:15 am, Marco Elver wrote:
> > 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.
> >
>
> Ah those lines had spaces instead of tab and I think I messed up the alignment
> fixing that. I will send another version fixing this.
> Thanks!

It was tabs then <8 spaces to align. checkpatch.pl certainly is happy with that.

> > Thanks,
> > -- Marco
> >
>