linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 08/16] kunit: tool: Add test for nested test result reporting

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: <20250620151847-953c56f6-5a20-4e46-82ce-8b58fd409250@linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2025 15:20:10 +0200
From: Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@...utronix.de>
To: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
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 Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 05:37:39PM +0800, David Gow wrote:
> 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)

This should be result.subtests[1].subtests[0].status.
But Ack and done.

> > +               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'?

Ack.