Date:   Fri, 30 Sep 2022 14:42:50 +0800
From:   David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
To:     Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>
Cc:     "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        KUnit Development <kunit-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Khalid Masum <khalid.masum.92@...il.com>,
        Sadiya Kazi <sadiyakazi@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Documentation: kunit: rewrite writing first test instructions

On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 9:26 PM Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com> wrote:
>
> The wordings of step-by-step instructions on writing the first Kunit test
> are instructing readers to write codes without knowing what these are about.
> Rewrite these instructions to include the purpose of written code.
>
> While at it, align the code blocks of these contents.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>
> ---
>  Changes since v1 [1]:
>
>    - Fix jumped list numbering on writing the feature
>
>  This patch is based on Khalid's full path to .kunitconfig patch [2].
>
>  [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/20220929125458.52979-1-bagasdotme@gmail.com/
>  [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/20220929085332.4155-1-khalid.masum.92@gmail.com/
>

While I like the idea behind this, the wording probably needs a bit of
tweaking. In addition, by describing everything in too much detail, I
fear we might just be adding some needless redundancy. My suspicion is
that everyone who's going to be writing KUnit tests already knows C
(or has access to better learning materials than this), so we're
unlikely to need to describe in detail that, e.g., misc_example_add()
adds two numbers together when the code is right there,

Also, I preferred v1 of the full path to .kunitconfig patch, so this
will need rebasing on top of whatever the final version of that turns
out to be.

In any case, further notes are inline, below.

Cheers,
-- David

>  Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/start.rst | 40 ++++++++++++++-----------
>  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/start.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/start.rst
> index 7999874dc4ddb3..c0a5adf6d8d665 100644
> --- a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/start.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/start.rst
> @@ -131,17 +131,19 @@ are built-in. Otherwise the module will need to be loaded.
>
>  Writing Your First Test
>  =======================
> -In your kernel repository, let's add some code that we can test.
> +In your kernel repository, let's add some code that we can test. For this
> +purpose, we are going to add simple addition driver.

A few issues here:
1. This should be "add _a_ simple addition driver".
2. That being said, I think we could simplify this further, and just
have "let's add a function to test, which adds two numbers together
and lives in its own driver.
3. This is an existing issue, but could we use "In _the_ kernel
repository" or "In _our_ kernel repository" to better match "let's"?

>
> -1. Create a file ``drivers/misc/example.h``, which includes:
> +1. Write the feature that will be tested. First, write the declaration
> +   for ``misc_example_add()`` in ``drivers/misc/example.h``:

As noted above, I think this is starting to verge on needless
redundancy here. I also think there was some benefit in pointing out
that this file is new, so needs to be created.

>
> -.. code-block:: c
> +   .. code-block:: c

Why are all of these code-block declarations being indented? It
doesn't seem to affect the actual documentation build, so I guess it's
harmless, but it'd be better not to have it change unnecessarily and
clutter up the diff.

>
>         int misc_example_add(int left, int right);
>
> -2. Create a file ``drivers/misc/example.c``, which includes:
> +   Then implement the function in ``drivers/misc/example.c``:

>
> -.. code-block:: c
> +   .. code-block:: c

Again, code-block indentation?

>
>         #include <linux/errno.h>
>
> @@ -152,24 +154,25 @@ In your kernel repository, let's add some code that we can test.
>                 return left + right;
>         }
>
> -3. Add the following lines to ``drivers/misc/Kconfig``:
> +2. Add Kconfig menu entry for the feature to ``drivers/misc/Kconfig``:

This needs rewording to add back an article ("a" or "the"), and we
probably want to call this a "Kconfig entry" rather than a "Kconfig
menu entry". Maybe "Add a Kconfig entry for the driver..."?

>
> -.. code-block:: kconfig
> +   .. code-block:: kconfig

Indentation again?

>
>         config MISC_EXAMPLE
>                 bool "My example"
>
> -4. Add the following lines to ``drivers/misc/Makefile``:
> +3. Add the kbuild goal that will build the feature to
> +   ``drivers/misc/Makefile``:

Kbuild goal? I've never heard of this being called a Kbuild goal before?

How about a "make target"?

>
> -.. code-block:: make
> +   .. code-block:: make

Indentation?

>
>         obj-$(CONFIG_MISC_EXAMPLE) += example.o
>
>  Now we are ready to write the test cases.
>
> -1. Add the below test case in ``drivers/misc/example_test.c``:
> +1. Write the test in ``drivers/misc/example_test.c``:

I really like this one!

>
> -.. code-block:: c
> +   .. code-block:: c

Indentation.

>
>         #include <kunit/test.h>
>         #include "example.h"
> @@ -202,31 +205,32 @@ Now we are ready to write the test cases.
>         };
>         kunit_test_suite(misc_example_test_suite);
>
> -2. Add the following lines to ``drivers/misc/Kconfig``:
> +2. Add following Kconfig entry for the test to ``drivers/misc/Kconfig``:

"Add _the_ following Kconfig entry".

>
> -.. code-block:: kconfig
> +   .. code-block:: kconfig

Indentation?

>
>         config MISC_EXAMPLE_TEST
>                 tristate "Test for my example" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
>                 depends on MISC_EXAMPLE && KUNIT=y
>                 default KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
>
> -3. Add the following lines to ``drivers/misc/Makefile``:
> +3. Add kbuild goal of the test to ``drivers/misc/Makefile``:

Add a "make target" for the test?

>
> -.. code-block:: make
> +   .. code-block:: make

Indentation?

>
>         obj-$(CONFIG_MISC_EXAMPLE_TEST) += example_test.o
>
> -4. Add following configuration fragments to ``.kunit/.kunitconfig``:
> +4. Add following configuration fragments for the test to
> +   ``.kunit/.kunitconfig``:

"Add _the_ following".

I still slightly prefer "config entries" or similar here...

>
> -.. code-block:: none
> +   .. code-block:: none

Indentation?

>
>         CONFIG_MISC_EXAMPLE=y
>         CONFIG_MISC_EXAMPLE_TEST=y
>
>  5. Run the test:
>
> -.. code-block:: bash
> +   .. code-block:: bash

Indentation?

>
>         ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run
>
> --
> An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
>

Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (4003 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists