linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] kunit: test: Add example_skip test suite which is always skipped

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]

Date:   Wed, 26 May 2021 20:35:47 +0200
From:   Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
To:     Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
Cc:     David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@...cle.com>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        KUnit Development <kunit-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] kunit: test: Add example_skip test suite which is
 always skipped

On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 11:29AM -0700, Daniel Latypov wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 1:56 AM 'Marco Elver' via KUnit Development
> <kunit-dev@...glegroups.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 01:11AM -0700, David Gow wrote:
> > > Add a new KUnit test suite which contains tests which are always
> > > skipped. This is used as an example for how to write tests which are
> > > skipped, and to demonstrate the difference between kunit_skip() and
> > > kunit_mark_skipped().
> > >
> > > Because these tests do not pass (they're skipped), they are not enabled
> > > by default, or by the KUNIT_ALL_TESTS config option: they must be
> > > enabled explicitly by setting CONFIG_KUNIT_EXAMPLE_SKIP_TEST=y in either
> > > a .config or .kunitconfig file.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
> > > ---
> > >  lib/kunit/Kconfig                   | 15 +++++++++
> > >  lib/kunit/Makefile                  |  2 ++
> > >  lib/kunit/kunit-example-skip-test.c | 52 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  3 files changed, 69 insertions(+)
> > >  create mode 100644 lib/kunit/kunit-example-skip-test.c
> >
> > I don't know if this test is useful for a user of KUnit. Given it's not
> > testing KUnit functionality (I see you added tests that the feature
> > works in patch 1/3), but rather a demonstration and therefore dead code.
> > I don't think the feature is difficult to understand from the API doc
> > text.
> >
> > Instead, would it be more helpful to add something to
> > Documentation/dev-tools/kunit? Or perhaps just add something to
> > lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c? It'd avoid introducing more Kconfig
> 
> I'm in favor of putting it in kunit-example-test.c as well.
> 
> But I hear there was pushback to have a non-passing test in the example?
> I guess the fear is that someone will see something that doesn't say
> "passed" in the example output and think something has gone wrong?
> 
> Hence this more conservative change.
> But I hope that in the absence of any replies in opposition, we can
> just keep one example-test.c

Maybe I misunderstood, but kunit_skip*() isn't supposed to change the
test ok/fail state, right?

That's the behaviour I'd expect at least.

So if the test case deliberately doesn't change the state, but just
skips, it should be fine in example-test.c.

Thanks,
-- Marco