[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <951b07d6-c4cb-0b15-aa16-9347a861d985@riseup.net>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2022 13:17:59 -0300
From: André Almeida <andrealmeid@...eup.net>
To: Maíra Canal <mairacanal@...eup.net>
Cc: melissa.srw@...il.com, jose.exposito89@...il.com, kuba@...nel.org,
siqueirajordao@...eup.net, Isabella Basso <isabbasso@...eup.net>,
magalilemes00@...il.com, airlied@...ux.ie, davidgow@...gle.com,
Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
davem@...emloft.net, javierm@...hat.com, tales.aparecida@...il.com,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, daniel@...ll.ch
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] kunit: Introduce KUNIT_EXPECT_ARREQ and
KUNIT_EXPECT_ARRNEQ macros
Hi Maíra,
Thanks for the patch!
Às 13:12 de 02/08/22, Maíra Canal escreveu:
> Currently, in order to compare arrays in KUnit, the KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ or
> KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE macros are used in conjunction with the memcmp
> function, such as:
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, memcmp(foo, bar, size), 0);
>
> Although this usage produces correct results for the test cases, when
> the expectation fails, the error message is not very helpful,
> indicating only the return of the memcmp function.
>
> Therefore, create a new set of macros KUNIT_EXPECT_ARREQ and
> KUNIT_EXPECT_ARRNEQ that compare memory blocks until a determined size.
> In case of expectation failure, those macros print the hex dump of the
> memory blocks, making it easier to debug test failures for arrays.
>
> That said, the expectation
>
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, memcmp(foo, bar, size), 0);
>
> would translate to the expectation
>
> KUNIT_EXPECT_ARREQ(test, foo, bar, size);
>
> Signed-off-by: Maíra Canal <mairacanal@...eup.net>
> ---
> diff --git a/lib/kunit/assert.c b/lib/kunit/assert.c
> index d00d6d181ee8..0b537a8690e0 100644
> --- a/lib/kunit/assert.c
> +++ b/lib/kunit/assert.c
> @@ -204,3 +204,46 @@ void kunit_binary_str_assert_format(const struct kunit_assert *assert,
> kunit_assert_print_msg(message, stream);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kunit_binary_str_assert_format);
> +
> +/* Adds a hexdump of a buffer to a string_stream */
> +static void kunit_assert_hexdump(struct string_stream *stream,
> + const void *buf, const size_t len)
> +{
> + const u8 *ptr = buf;
> + int i, linelen, remaining = len;
> + unsigned char linebuf[32 * 3 + 2 + 32 + 1];
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < len; i += 16) {
> + linelen = min(remaining, 16);
> + remaining -= 16;
> +
> + hex_dump_to_buffer(ptr + i, linelen, 16, 1, linebuf, sizeof(linebuf), false);
> +
> + string_stream_add(stream, "%.8x: %s\n", i, linebuf);
> + }
> +}
> +
> +void kunit_arr_assert_format(const struct kunit_assert *assert,
> + const struct va_format *message,
> + struct string_stream *stream)
> +{
> + struct kunit_arr_assert *arr_assert;
> +
> + arr_assert = container_of(assert, struct kunit_arr_assert,
> + assert);
> +
> + string_stream_add(stream,
> + KUNIT_SUBTEST_INDENT "Expected %s %s %s, but\n",
> + arr_assert->text->left_text,
> + arr_assert->text->operation,
> + arr_assert->text->right_text);
> +
> + string_stream_add(stream, KUNIT_SUBSUBTEST_INDENT "%s == \n", arr_assert->text->left_text);
> + kunit_assert_hexdump(stream, arr_assert->left_value, arr_assert->size);
I think using `:` instead of `==` gives a better output here
[12:38:20] dst:
[12:38:20] 00000000: 33 0a 60 12 00 a8 00 00 00 00 8e 6b 33 0a 60 12
[12:38:20] 00000010: 00 00 00 00 00 a8 8e 6b 33 0a 00 00 00 00
[12:38:20] result->expected:
[12:38:20] 00000000: 31 0a 60 12 00 a8 00 00 00 00 81 6b 33 0a 60 12
[12:38:20] 00000010: 00 00 00 00 01 a8 8e 6b 33 0a 00 00 00 00
> +
> + string_stream_add(stream, KUNIT_SUBSUBTEST_INDENT "%s == \n", arr_assert->text->right_text);
> + kunit_assert_hexdump(stream, arr_assert->right_value, arr_assert->size);
> +
> + kunit_assert_print_msg(message, stream);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kunit_arr_assert_format);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists