linux-kernel - 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: <11549107-7247-03a7-2469-f5aa793a0d19@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 7 Nov 2020 00:30:36 +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 v5 1/2] kunit: Support for Parameterized Testing

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!

> Thanks,
> -- Marco
>