linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/7] rust: kunit: support KUnit-mapped `assert!` macros in `#[test]`s

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]

Message-ID: <CANiq72kRMSLpXChRtLHgeHUsO39iSBNUygzcFXWmyCfetdC6mg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2025 02:02:21 +0200
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com>
Cc: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>, 
	David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>, Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, Rae Moar <rmoar@...gle.com>, 
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, 
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, 
	Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, 
	Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>, Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>, 
	Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>, 
	Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] rust: kunit: support KUnit-mapped `assert!` macros in `#[test]`s

On Sun, May 4, 2025 at 7:42 PM Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com> wrote:
>
> How come this vanished?

It doesn't lint anymore -- the lint only appears to be intended to
work with the standard `assert_eq!` macro (and related ones), if I am
reading its source code correctly.

I created an issue upstream and linked it into our Clippy metalist,
similar to the custom `dbg!` request:

    https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/14903

> nit: why not String::new() for all these?

I prefer that too, but I kept it consistent with the other lines. We
could put that as a "good first issue" unless someone gives a reason
to prefer other methods.

> Could we do this (pushing `assert_macros`) before the block above to
> avoid this body/new_body name juggling?

We can use a new variable, changing the line below (i.e. it is clear
then that we are "assembling the final body") -- I did that.

Moving the new variable then is also possible, but I think it makes it
a bit harder to see the three "main parts" that we assemble into the
final body.

But if you have a better approach or I misunderstood, please of course
feel free to send a patch (or maybe a "good first issue", since that
would be a good one I think).

Thanks!

Cheers,
Miguel