linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] fpga: add initial KUnit test suite

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZANfOj1MN+HHaF9n@yilunxu-OptiPlex-7050>
Date:   Sat, 4 Mar 2023 23:09:46 +0800
From:   Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@...el.com>
To:     Marco Pagani <marpagan@...hat.com>
Cc:     Moritz Fischer <mdf@...nel.org>, Wu Hao <hao.wu@...el.com>,
        Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] fpga: add initial KUnit test suite

> >>>> +	ret = init_sgt_bit(&sgt_bit, fake_bit, FAKE_BIT_SIZE);
> >>>> +	KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
> >>>
> >>> This is not fpga function, do we need the ASSERT?
> >>>
> >>
> >> You're right. I'll change it to EXPECT.
> > 
> > Mm.. I think we may move the sgt initialization in .suite_init, and just
> > return ERROR for failure. Does it help to quickly find out this is an
> > ENV error, not a test case failure?
> 
> I looked through the documentation for guidelines on how to handle
> initialization errors, but found only the eeprom example where KUNIT_ASSERT
> is used to handle errors in eeprom_buffer_test_init(). Existing test suites
> seem to use different approaches to handle initialization errors. Some
> return an error code, while others use KUnit assertions.
> 
> I'm more inclined to follow the example in the documentation and use
> KUnit assertions. Does this approach work for you?

It's good to me.

> 
> 
> After some thought, I'm restructuring the code to test single components
> in isolation before testing them together. In this way, I think the test
> suite will be more in line with the unit testing methodology.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Marco
>