Message-ID: <9c20815b-40df-d1c8-112f-e8d9732333eb@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 14 Nov 2020 07:07:52 +0530
From:   Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@...il.com>
To:     Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>, David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
Cc:     "Bird, Tim" <Tim.Bird@...y.com>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        Shuah Khan <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>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org" 
        <linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>,
        "linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] kunit: Support for Parameterized Testing

On 14/11/20 5:44 am, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 at 23:37, David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 6:31 PM Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 01:17PM +0800, David Gow wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 8:37 PM Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>>> (It also might be a little tricky with the current implementation to
>>>>>> produce the test plan, as the parameters come from a generator, and I
>>>>>> don't think there's a way of getting the number of parameters ahead of
>>>>>> time. That's a problem with the sub-subtest model, too, though at
>>>>>> least there it's a little more isolated from other tests.)
>>>>>
>>>>> The whole point of generators, as I envisage it, is to also provide the
>>>>> ability for varying parameters dependent on e.g. environment,
>>>>> configuration, number of CPUs, etc. The current array-based generator is
>>>>> the simplest possible use-case.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, we *can* require generators generate a deterministic number of
>>>>> parameters when called multiple times on the same system.
>>>>
>>>> I think this is a reasonable compromise, though it's not actually
>>>> essential. As I understand the TAP spec, the test plan is actually
>>>> optional (and/or can be at the end of the sequence of tests), though
>>>> kunit_tool currently only supports having it at the beginning (which
>>>> is strongly preferred by the spec anyway). I think we could get away
>>>> with having it at the bottom of the subtest results though, which
>>>> would save having to run the generator twice, when subtest support is
>>>> added to kunit_tool.
>>>
>>> I can't find this in the TAP spec, where should I look? Perhaps we
>>> shouldn't venture too far off the beaten path, given we might not be the
>>> only ones that want to parse this output.
>>>
>>
>> It's in the "Test Lines and the Plan" section:
>> "The plan is optional but if there is a plan before the test points it
>> must be the first non-diagnostic line output by the test file. In
>> certain instances a test file may not know how many test points it
>> will ultimately be running. In this case the plan can be the last
>> non-diagnostic line in the output. The plan cannot appear in the
>> middle of the output, nor can it appear more than once."
> 
> Ah, that's fine then.
> 
>> My only concern with running through the generator multiple times to
>> get the count is that it might be slow and/or more difficult if
>> someone uses a more complicated generator. I can't think of anything
>> specific yet, though, so we can always do it for now and change it
>> later if a problematic case occurs.
> 
> I'm all for simplicity, so if nobody objects, let's just get rid of
> the number of parameters and avoid running it twice.
> 
>>>>> To that end, I propose a v7 (below) that takes care of getting number of
>>>>> parameters (and also displays descriptions for each parameter where
>>>>> available).
>>>>>
>>>>> Now it is up to you how you want to turn the output from diagnostic
>>>>> lines into something TAP compliant, because now we have the number of
>>>>> parameters and can turn it into a subsubtest. But I think kunit-tool
>>>>> doesn't understand subsubtests yet, so I suggest we take these patches,
>>>>> and then somebody can prepare kunit-tool.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This sounds good to me. The only thing I'm not sure about is the
>>>> format of the parameter description: thus far test names be valid C
>>>> identifier names, due to the fact they're named after the test
>>>> function. I don't think there's a fundamental reason parameters (and
>>>> hence, potentially, subsubtests) need to follow that convention as
>>>> well, but it does look a bit odd.  Equally, the square brackets around
>>>> the description shouldn't be necessary according to the TAP spec, but
>>>> do seem to make things a little more readable, particuarly with the
>>>> names in the ext4 inode test. I'm not too worried about either of
>>>> those, though: I'm sure it'll look fine once I've got used to it.
>>>
>>> The parameter description doesn't need to be a C identifier. At least
>>> that's what I could immediately glean from TAP v13 spec (I'm looking
>>> here: https://testanything.org/tap-version-13-specification.html and see
>>> e.g. "ok 1 - Input file opened" ...).
>>>
>>
>> Yeah: it looked a bit weird for everything else to be an identifier
>> (given that KUnit does require it for tests), but these parameter
>> descriptions not to be. It's not a problem, though, so let's go ahead
>> with it.
>>
>>> [...]
>>>>>> In any case, I'm happy to leave the final decision here to Arpitha and
>>>>>> Marco, so long as we don't actually violate the TAP/KTAP spec and
>>>>>> kunit_tool is able to read at least the top-level result. My
>>>>>> preference is still to go either with the "# [test_case->name]:
>>>>>> [ok|not ok] [index] - param-[index]", or to get rid of the
>>>>>> per-parameter results entirely for now (or just print out a diagnostic
>>>>>> message on failure). In any case, it's a decision we can revisit once
>>>>>> we have support for named parameters, better tooling, or a better idea
>>>>>> of how people are actually using this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, so I think we'll be in a better place if we implement: 1)
>>>>> parameter to description conversion support, 2) counting parameters. So
>>>>> I decided to see what it looks like, and it wasn't too bad. I just don't
>>>>> know how you want to fix kunit-tool to make these non-diagnostic lines
>>>>> and not complain, but as I said, it'd be good to not block these
>>>>> patches.
>>>>
>>>> Yup, I tried this v7, and it looks good to me. The kunit_tool work
>>>> will probably be a touch more involved, so I definitely don't want to
>>>> hold up supporting this on that.
>>>>
>>>> My only thoughts on the v7 patch are:
>>>> - I don't think we actually need the parameter count yet (or perhaps
>>>> ever if we go with subtests as planned), so I be okay with getting rid
>>>> of that.
>>>
>>> As noted above, perhaps we should keep it for compatibility with other
>>> parsers and CI systems we don't have much control over. It'd be a shame
>>> if 99% of KUnit output can be parsed by some partially compliant parser,
>>> yet this would break it.
>>
>> KUnit has only started providing the test plans in some cases pretty
>> recently, and the spec does make it optional, so I'm not particularly
>> worried about this breaking parsers. I'm not too worried about it
>> causing problems to have it either, though, so if you'd rather keep
>> it, that's fine by me as well.
>>
>>>> - It'd be a possibility to get rid of the square brackets from the
>>>> output, and if we still want them, make them part of the test itself:
>>>> if this were TAP formatted, those brackets would be part of the
>>>> subsubtest name.
>>>
>>> I don't mind. It's just that we can't prescribe a format, and as
>>> seen below the descriptions include characters -<>=,. which can be
>>> confusing. But perhaps you're right, so let's remove them.
>>>
>>> But as noted, TAP doesn't seem to care. So let's remove them.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah: I have a slight preference for removing them, as TAP parsers
>> would otherwise include them in the parameter name, which looks a
>> little weird.
>> Of course, the point is moot until we actually fix kunit_tool and make
>> these subtests, so there's no fundamental reason we couldn't leave
>> them in for now, and remove them then if you thought it was
>> significantly more readable. (Personally, I'd still err on the side of
>> removing them to avoid any unnecessary churn.)
> 
> Sounds good.
> 
> Arpitha: Do you want to send v7, but with the following modifications
> from what I proposed? Assuming nobody objects.
> 
> 1. Remove the num_params counter and don't print the number of params
> anymore, nor do validation that generators are deterministic.
> 2. Remove the [].
> [ I'm happy to send as well, just let me know what you prefer. ]
> 
> Thanks,
> -- Marco
> 

If no objections I will send the v7 with the above changes.
Thanks!

Powered by blists - more mailing lists