[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABVgOSmTXj_t0_nJyjhc=mvpPkGGW5D4qGd0WajmVgVyMgd_Hg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2025 17:37:39 +0800
From: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
To: Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@...utronix.de>
Cc: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>, Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>,
Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>, Rae Moar <rmoar@...gle.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Nicolas Schier <nicolas.schier@...ux.dev>, Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Alexandre Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr>, Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
workflows@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/16] kunit: tool: Add test for nested test result reporting
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 at 15:38, Thomas Weißschuh
<thomas.weissschuh@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> Currently there is no test validating the result reporting from nested
> tests. Add one, it will also be used to validate upcoming changes to the
> nested test parsing.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@...utronix.de>
> ---
This looks good, modulo a couple of minor suggestions below.
Regardless,
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
Cheers,
-- David
> tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py | 9 +++++++++
> .../kunit/test_data/test_is_test_passed-failure-nested.log | 7 +++++++
> 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
> index bbba921e0eacb18663abfcabb2bccf330d8666f5..691cde9b030f7729128490c1bdb42ccee1967ad6 100755
> --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
> +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
> @@ -165,6 +165,15 @@ class KUnitParserTest(unittest.TestCase):
> self.assertEqual(kunit_parser.TestStatus.FAILURE, result.status)
> self.assertEqual(result.counts.errors, 0)
>
> + def test_parse_failed_nested_tests_log(self):
> + nested_log = test_data_path('test_is_test_passed-failure-nested.log')
> + with open(nested_log) as file:
> + result = kunit_parser.parse_run_tests(file.readlines(), stdout)
> + self.assertEqual(kunit_parser.TestStatus.FAILURE, result.status)
> + self.assertEqual(result.counts.failed, 2)
> + self.assertEqual(kunit_parser.TestStatus.FAILURE, result.subtests[0].status)
Is it worth also testing the value of the nested test's result here? i.e.,
self.assertEqual(kunit_parser.TestStatus.FAILURE,
result.subtests[0].subtests[0].status)
> + self.assertEqual(kunit_parser.TestStatus.FAILURE, result.subtests[1].status)
> +
> def test_no_header(self):
> empty_log = test_data_path('test_is_test_passed-no_tests_run_no_header.log')
> with open(empty_log) as file:
> diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/test_data/test_is_test_passed-failure-nested.log b/tools/testing/kunit/test_data/test_is_test_passed-failure-nested.log
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..835816e0a07715a514f5f5afab1b6250037feaf4
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/test_data/test_is_test_passed-failure-nested.log
> @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
> +KTAP version 1
> +1..2
> +not ok 1 subtest 1
> + KTAP version 1
> + 1..1
> + not ok 1 test 1
> +not ok 2 subtest 2
Having these named 'subtest 1' and 'test 1' is a bit confusing to me
(as it implies the outer tests are subtests of the inner ones, which
isn't right).
Could we either swap 'subtest' and 'test' here, or -- if we want to
preserve the match between 'subtest' here and the subtest in the
python code -- label the inner one something like 'subsubtest'?
>
> --
> 2.49.0
>
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (5281 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists