Create test suite called "kunit_current" to add test coverage for the use
of current->kunit_test, which returns the current KUnit test.
Add three test cases:
- kunit_current_kunit_test_field to test the use of current->kunit_test.
- kunit_current_get_current_test to test the method
kunit_get_current_test(), which utilizes current->kunit_test.
- kunit_current_fail_current_test to test the method
kunit_fail_current_test(), which utilizes current->kunit_test.
Signed-off-by: Rae Moar <[email protected]>
---
lib/kunit/kunit-test.c | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c b/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
index b63595d3e241..91984b92c916 100644
--- a/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
+++ b/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
* Author: Brendan Higgins <[email protected]>
*/
#include <kunit/test.h>
+#include <kunit/test-bug.h>
#include "try-catch-impl.h"
@@ -532,7 +533,65 @@ static struct kunit_suite kunit_status_test_suite = {
.test_cases = kunit_status_test_cases,
};
+static void kunit_current_kunit_test_field(struct kunit *test)
+{
+ struct kunit *current_test;
+
+ /* Check to ensure the result of current->kunit_test
+ * is equivalent to current test.
+ */
+ current_test = current->kunit_test;
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, current_test);
+}
+
+static void kunit_current_get_current_test(struct kunit *test)
+{
+ struct kunit *current_test1, *current_test2;
+
+ /* Check to ensure the result of kunit_get_current_test()
+ * is equivalent to current test.
+ */
+ current_test1 = kunit_get_current_test();
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, current_test1);
+
+ /* Check to ensure the result of kunit_get_current_test()
+ * is equivalent to current->kunit_test.
+ */
+ current_test2 = current->kunit_test;
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, current_test1, current_test2);
+}
+
+static void kunit_current_fail_current_test(struct kunit *test)
+{
+ struct kunit fake;
+
+ /* Initialize fake test and set as current->kunit_test. */
+ kunit_init_test(&fake, "fake test", NULL);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake.status, KUNIT_SUCCESS);
+ current->kunit_test = &fake;
+
+ /* Fail current test and expect status of fake test to be failed. */
+ kunit_fail_current_test("This test is supposed to fail.");
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake.status, (enum kunit_status)KUNIT_FAILURE);
+
+ /* Reset current->kunit_test to current test. */
+ current->kunit_test = test;
+}
+
+static struct kunit_case kunit_current_test_cases[] = {
+ KUNIT_CASE(kunit_current_kunit_test_field),
+ KUNIT_CASE(kunit_current_get_current_test),
+ KUNIT_CASE(kunit_current_fail_current_test),
+ {}
+};
+
+static struct kunit_suite kunit_current_test_suite = {
+ .name = "kunit_current",
+ .test_cases = kunit_current_test_cases,
+};
+
kunit_test_suites(&kunit_try_catch_test_suite, &kunit_resource_test_suite,
- &kunit_log_test_suite, &kunit_status_test_suite);
+ &kunit_log_test_suite, &kunit_status_test_suite,
+ &kunit_current_test_suite);
MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
base-commit: 7232282dd47cce6a780c9414bd9baccf232c7686
--
2.40.0.348.gf938b09366-goog
I've got a few minor comments below, but this otherwise looks good.
I like the idea of testing knuit_fail_current_test().
On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 3:05 PM Rae Moar <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> +static void kunit_current_kunit_test_field(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> + struct kunit *current_test;
> +
> + /* Check to ensure the result of current->kunit_test
> + * is equivalent to current test.
> + */
> + current_test = current->kunit_test;
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, current_test);
Perhaps we can combine this and the next test case down to
static void kunit_current_test(struct kunit *test) {
/* There are two different ways of getting the current test */
KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, current->kunit_test);
KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, kunit_get_current_test());
}
?
> +}
> +
> +static void kunit_current_get_current_test(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> + struct kunit *current_test1, *current_test2;
> +
> + /* Check to ensure the result of kunit_get_current_test()
> + * is equivalent to current test.
> + */
> + current_test1 = kunit_get_current_test();
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, current_test1);
> +
> + /* Check to ensure the result of kunit_get_current_test()
> + * is equivalent to current->kunit_test.
> + */
> + current_test2 = current->kunit_test;
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, current_test1, current_test2);
> +}
> +
> +static void kunit_current_fail_current_test(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> + struct kunit fake;
> +
> + /* Initialize fake test and set as current->kunit_test. */
Nit: I think the code is self-explanatory enough that we can drop this comment.
> + kunit_init_test(&fake, "fake test", NULL);
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake.status, KUNIT_SUCCESS);
> + current->kunit_test = &fake;
> +
> + /* Fail current test and expect status of fake test to be failed. */
Nit: I think this comment could also be dropped or maybe shortened to
kunit_fail_current_test("This should make `fake` fail");
or
/* Now kunit_fail_current_test() should modify `fake`, not `test` */
kunit_fail_current_test("This should make `fake` fail");
> + kunit_fail_current_test("This test is supposed to fail.");
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake.status, (enum kunit_status)KUNIT_FAILURE);
> +
Hmm, should we try calling
kunit_cleanup(&fake);
?
Right now this does resource cleanups, but we might have other state
to cleanup for our `fake` test object in the future.
Daniel
On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 at 06:21, 'Daniel Latypov' via KUnit Development
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I've got a few minor comments below, but this otherwise looks good.
> I like the idea of testing knuit_fail_current_test().
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 3:05 PM Rae Moar <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > +static void kunit_current_kunit_test_field(struct kunit *test)
> > +{
> > + struct kunit *current_test;
> > +
> > + /* Check to ensure the result of current->kunit_test
> > + * is equivalent to current test.
> > + */
> > + current_test = current->kunit_test;
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, current_test);
>
> Perhaps we can combine this and the next test case down to
> static void kunit_current_test(struct kunit *test) {
> /* There are two different ways of getting the current test */
> KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, current->kunit_test);
> KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, kunit_get_current_test());
> }
> ?
>
Agreed: checking current->kunit_test twice feels a bit odd.
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void kunit_current_get_current_test(struct kunit *test)
> > +{
> > + struct kunit *current_test1, *current_test2;
> > +
> > + /* Check to ensure the result of kunit_get_current_test()
> > + * is equivalent to current test.
> > + */
> > + current_test1 = kunit_get_current_test();
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, current_test1);
> > +
> > + /* Check to ensure the result of kunit_get_current_test()
> > + * is equivalent to current->kunit_test.
> > + */
> > + current_test2 = current->kunit_test;
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, current_test1, current_test2);
>
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void kunit_current_fail_current_test(struct kunit *test)
> > +{
> > + struct kunit fake;
> > +
> > + /* Initialize fake test and set as current->kunit_test. */
>
> Nit: I think the code is self-explanatory enough that we can drop this comment.
>
> > + kunit_init_test(&fake, "fake test", NULL);
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake.status, KUNIT_SUCCESS);
> > + current->kunit_test = &fake;
> > +
> > + /* Fail current test and expect status of fake test to be failed. */
>
> Nit: I think this comment could also be dropped or maybe shortened to
> kunit_fail_current_test("This should make `fake` fail");
>
> or
> /* Now kunit_fail_current_test() should modify `fake`, not `test` */
> kunit_fail_current_test("This should make `fake` fail");
>
> > + kunit_fail_current_test("This test is supposed to fail.");
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake.status, (enum kunit_status)KUNIT_FAILURE);
> > +
>
> Hmm, should we try calling
> kunit_cleanup(&fake);
> ?
>
> Right now this does resource cleanups, but we might have other state
> to cleanup for our `fake` test object in the future.
I could go either way here. We currently don't do this with the other
status tests (kunit_status), only with the resource ones.
But it doesn't hurt to add it...
>
> Daniel
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "KUnit Development" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kunit-dev/CAGS_qxqNwVcymkG6-8Kv72oZc9aDqjFjBBmjr%2Bf%2BmOVKT1bGvA%40mail.gmail.com.
On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 6:21 PM 'Daniel Latypov' via KUnit Development
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I've got a few minor comments below, but this otherwise looks good.
> I like the idea of testing knuit_fail_current_test().
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 3:05 PM Rae Moar <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > +static void kunit_current_kunit_test_field(struct kunit *test)
> > +{
> > + struct kunit *current_test;
> > +
> > + /* Check to ensure the result of current->kunit_test
> > + * is equivalent to current test.
> > + */
> > + current_test = current->kunit_test;
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, current_test);
>
> Perhaps we can combine this and the next test case down to
> static void kunit_current_test(struct kunit *test) {
> /* There are two different ways of getting the current test */
> KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, current->kunit_test);
> KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, kunit_get_current_test());
> }
> ?
Hi Daniel!
Yes, I would be happy to combine these for v2. I might want to alter
that proposed comment slightly. "Two different ways" seems a bit
unclear to me. Maybe: Check results of both current->kunit_test and
kunit_get_current_test() are equivalent to current test. What do you
think? I might send out a v2 with a proposed comment.
>
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void kunit_current_get_current_test(struct kunit *test)
> > +{
> > + struct kunit *current_test1, *current_test2;
> > +
> > + /* Check to ensure the result of kunit_get_current_test()
> > + * is equivalent to current test.
> > + */
> > + current_test1 = kunit_get_current_test();
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, current_test1);
> > +
> > + /* Check to ensure the result of kunit_get_current_test()
> > + * is equivalent to current->kunit_test.
> > + */
> > + current_test2 = current->kunit_test;
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, current_test1, current_test2);
>
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void kunit_current_fail_current_test(struct kunit *test)
> > +{
> > + struct kunit fake;
> > +
> > + /* Initialize fake test and set as current->kunit_test. */
>
> Nit: I think the code is self-explanatory enough that we can drop this comment.
>
I agree the "initialize fake test" comment is self-explanatory. But if
we keep the comment regarding resetting the current test, I think we
should mark when we set the test as a fake with a comment as well.
> > + kunit_init_test(&fake, "fake test", NULL);
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake.status, KUNIT_SUCCESS);
> > + current->kunit_test = &fake;
> > +
> > + /* Fail current test and expect status of fake test to be failed. */
>
> Nit: I think this comment could also be dropped or maybe shortened to
> kunit_fail_current_test("This should make `fake` fail");
>
This first option seems good to me.
> or
> /* Now kunit_fail_current_test() should modify `fake`, not `test` */
> kunit_fail_current_test("This should make `fake` fail");
>
> > + kunit_fail_current_test("This test is supposed to fail.");
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake.status, (enum kunit_status)KUNIT_FAILURE);
> > +
>
> Hmm, should we try calling
> kunit_cleanup(&fake);
> ?
>
> Right now this does resource cleanups, but we might have other state
> to cleanup for our `fake` test object in the future.
>
I would be fine to add this here if it is wanted.
Thanks Daniel for the comments!
Rae
> Daniel
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "KUnit Development" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kunit-dev/CAGS_qxqNwVcymkG6-8Kv72oZc9aDqjFjBBmjr%2Bf%2BmOVKT1bGvA%40mail.gmail.com.
On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 12:31 PM Rae Moar <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 6:21 PM 'Daniel Latypov' via KUnit Development
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > I've got a few minor comments below, but this otherwise looks good.
> > I like the idea of testing knuit_fail_current_test().
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 3:05 PM Rae Moar <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > +static void kunit_current_kunit_test_field(struct kunit *test)
> > > +{
> > > + struct kunit *current_test;
> > > +
> > > + /* Check to ensure the result of current->kunit_test
> > > + * is equivalent to current test.
> > > + */
> > > + current_test = current->kunit_test;
> > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, current_test);
> >
> > Perhaps we can combine this and the next test case down to
> > static void kunit_current_test(struct kunit *test) {
> > /* There are two different ways of getting the current test */
> > KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, current->kunit_test);
> > KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, kunit_get_current_test());
> > }
> > ?
>
> Hi Daniel!
>
> Yes, I would be happy to combine these for v2. I might want to alter
> that proposed comment slightly. "Two different ways" seems a bit
> unclear to me. Maybe: Check results of both current->kunit_test and
> kunit_get_current_test() are equivalent to current test. What do you
> think? I might send out a v2 with a proposed comment.
What you went with in v2 works for me.
I'll take a look at the other changes in v2.
Thanks!
Daniel