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:   Thu, 10 Nov 2022 10:37:21 +0530
From:   Sadiya Kazi <sadiyakazi@...gle.com>
To:     Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
Cc:     brendanhiggins@...gle.com, davidgow@...gle.com, rmoar@...gle.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        skhan@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] Documentation: KUnit: reword description of assertions

On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 6:06 AM 'Daniel Latypov' via KUnit Development
<kunit-dev@...glegroups.com> wrote:
>
> The existing wording implies that kunit_kmalloc_array() is "the method
> under test". We're actually testing the sort() function in that example.
> This is because the example was changed in commit 953574390634
> ("Documentation: KUnit: Rework writing page to focus on writing tests"),
> but the wording was not.
>
> Also add a `note` telling people they can use the KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ()
> macros from any function. Some users might be coming from a framework
> like gUnit where that'll compile but silently do the wrong thing.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
> ---

Thank you, Daniel. This looks fine to me except for a small typo in
this line "to abort
the test if we there's an allocation error". Also, I have reworded
that paragraph a bit
as below. Please feel free to ignore, if you do not agree:

In this example, to test the ``sort()`` function, we must be able to
allocate an array.
If there is an allocation error, the test is terminated using the function
``KUNIT ASSERT NOT ERR OR NULL()``.

Reviewed-by: Sadiya Kazi <sadiyakazi@...gle.com>

Best Regards,
Sadiya



>  Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst | 13 ++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst
> index b0a6c3bc0eeb..8060114e3aa6 100644
> --- a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst
> @@ -112,11 +112,14 @@ terminates the test case if the condition is not satisfied. For example:
>                         KUNIT_EXPECT_LE(test, a[i], a[i + 1]);
>         }
>
> -In this example, the method under test should return pointer to a value. If the
> -pointer returns null or an errno, we want to stop the test since the following
> -expectation could crash the test case. `ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(...)` allows us
> -to bail out of the test case if the appropriate conditions are not satisfied to
> -complete the test.
> +In this example, we need to be able to allocate an array to test the ``sort()``
> +function. So we use ``KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL()`` to abort the test if
> +we there's an allocation error.
> +
> +.. note::
> +   In other test frameworks, ``ASSERT`` macros are often implemented by calling
> +   ``return`` so they only work from the test function. In KUnit, we stop the
> +   current kthread on failure, so you can call them from anywhere.
>
>  Customizing error messages
>  --------------------------
> --
> 2.38.1.431.g37b22c650d-goog
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "KUnit Development" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kunit-dev+unsubscribe@...glegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kunit-dev/20221109003618.3784591-2-dlatypov%40google.com.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ