linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] Documentation: KUnit: reword description of assertions

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 08:04:12 -0800
From:   Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
To:     Sadiya Kazi <sadiyakazi@...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 9:07 PM Sadiya Kazi <sadiyakazi@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> 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()``.

Thanks for catching that.

Hmm, I slightly prefer the current structure since I like having the
<thing> being described near the start of the sentence as opposed to
the very end.
I'll wait a bit before sending a v3 to give time for anyone else to
chime in, if they want.

Snipping the email to the block in question:

> > +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.