The (K)TAP spec encourages test output to begin with a 'test plan': a
count of the number of tests being run of the form:
1..n
However, some test suites might not know the number of subtests in
advance (for example, KUnit's parameterised tests use a generator
function). In this case, it's not possible to print the test plan in
advance.
kunit_tool already parses test output which doesn't contain a plan, but
reports an error. Since we want to use nested subtests with KUnit
paramterised tests, remove this error.
Signed-off-by: David Gow <[email protected]>
---
tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py | 5 ++---
tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py | 5 ++++-
2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py
index 3355196d0515..50ded55c168c 100644
--- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py
+++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py
@@ -340,8 +340,8 @@ def parse_test_plan(lines: LineStream, test: Test) -> bool:
"""
Parses test plan line and stores the expected number of subtests in
test object. Reports an error if expected count is 0.
- Returns False and reports missing test plan error if fails to parse
- test plan.
+ Returns False and sets expected_count to None if there is no valid test
+ plan.
Accepted format:
- '1..[number of subtests]'
@@ -356,7 +356,6 @@ def parse_test_plan(lines: LineStream, test: Test) -> bool:
match = TEST_PLAN.match(lines.peek())
if not match:
test.expected_count = None
- test.add_error('missing plan line!')
return False
test.log.append(lines.pop())
expected_count = int(match.group(1))
diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
index 9c4126731457..bc8793145713 100755
--- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
+++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
@@ -191,7 +191,10 @@ class KUnitParserTest(unittest.TestCase):
result = kunit_parser.parse_run_tests(
kunit_parser.extract_tap_lines(
file.readlines()))
- self.assertEqual(2, result.test.counts.errors)
+ # A missing test plan is not an error.
+ self.assertEqual(0, result.test.counts.errors)
+ # All tests should be accounted for.
+ self.assertEqual(10, result.test.counts.total())
self.assertEqual(
kunit_parser.TestStatus.SUCCESS,
result.status)
--
2.33.0.1079.g6e70778dc9-goog
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 11:28 PM David Gow <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The (K)TAP spec encourages test output to begin with a 'test plan': a
> count of the number of tests being run of the form:
> 1..n
>
> However, some test suites might not know the number of subtests in
> advance (for example, KUnit's parameterised tests use a generator
> function). In this case, it's not possible to print the test plan in
> advance.
>
> kunit_tool already parses test output which doesn't contain a plan, but
> reports an error. Since we want to use nested subtests with KUnit
> paramterised tests, remove this error.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Gow <[email protected]>
> ---
> tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py | 5 ++---
> tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py | 5 ++++-
> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py
> index 3355196d0515..50ded55c168c 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py
> +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py
> @@ -340,8 +340,8 @@ def parse_test_plan(lines: LineStream, test: Test) -> bool:
> """
> Parses test plan line and stores the expected number of subtests in
> test object. Reports an error if expected count is 0.
> - Returns False and reports missing test plan error if fails to parse
> - test plan.
> + Returns False and sets expected_count to None if there is no valid test
> + plan.
>
> Accepted format:
> - '1..[number of subtests]'
> @@ -356,7 +356,6 @@ def parse_test_plan(lines: LineStream, test: Test) -> bool:
> match = TEST_PLAN.match(lines.peek())
> if not match:
> test.expected_count = None
> - test.add_error('missing plan line!')
This works well, but there's an edge case.
This patch means we no longer print an error when there are no test
cases in a subtest.
We relied on a check just a bit lower in this function.
Consider
$ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py parse <<EOF
TAP version 14
1..1
# Subtest: suite
1..1
# Subtest: case
ok 1 - case
ok 1 - suite
EOF
This produces the following output (timestamps removed)
============================================================
==================== suite (1 subtest) =====================
=========================== case ===========================
====================== [PASSED] case =======================
====================== [PASSED] suite ======================
============================================================
Should we surface some sort of error here?
> return False
> test.log.append(lines.pop())
> expected_count = int(match.group(1))
> diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
> index 9c4126731457..bc8793145713 100755
> --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
> +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
> @@ -191,7 +191,10 @@ class KUnitParserTest(unittest.TestCase):
> result = kunit_parser.parse_run_tests(
> kunit_parser.extract_tap_lines(
> file.readlines()))
> - self.assertEqual(2, result.test.counts.errors)
> + # A missing test plan is not an error.
> + self.assertEqual(0, result.test.counts.errors)
> + # All tests should be accounted for.
> + self.assertEqual(10, result.test.counts.total())
> self.assertEqual(
> kunit_parser.TestStatus.SUCCESS,
> result.status)
> --
> 2.33.0.1079.g6e70778dc9-goog
>
On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 9:29 AM Daniel Latypov <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 11:28 PM David Gow <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > The (K)TAP spec encourages test output to begin with a 'test plan': a
> > count of the number of tests being run of the form:
> > 1..n
> >
> > However, some test suites might not know the number of subtests in
> > advance (for example, KUnit's parameterised tests use a generator
> > function). In this case, it's not possible to print the test plan in
> > advance.
> >
> > kunit_tool already parses test output which doesn't contain a plan, but
> > reports an error. Since we want to use nested subtests with KUnit
> > paramterised tests, remove this error.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: David Gow <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py | 5 ++---
> > tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py | 5 ++++-
> > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py
> > index 3355196d0515..50ded55c168c 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py
> > +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py
> > @@ -340,8 +340,8 @@ def parse_test_plan(lines: LineStream, test: Test) -> bool:
> > """
> > Parses test plan line and stores the expected number of subtests in
> > test object. Reports an error if expected count is 0.
> > - Returns False and reports missing test plan error if fails to parse
> > - test plan.
> > + Returns False and sets expected_count to None if there is no valid test
> > + plan.
> >
> > Accepted format:
> > - '1..[number of subtests]'
> > @@ -356,7 +356,6 @@ def parse_test_plan(lines: LineStream, test: Test) -> bool:
> > match = TEST_PLAN.match(lines.peek())
> > if not match:
> > test.expected_count = None
> > - test.add_error('missing plan line!')
>
> This works well, but there's an edge case.
>
> This patch means we no longer print an error when there are no test
> cases in a subtest.
> We relied on a check just a bit lower in this function.
>
> Consider
>
> $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py parse <<EOF
> TAP version 14
> 1..1
> # Subtest: suite
> 1..1
> # Subtest: case
> ok 1 - case
> ok 1 - suite
> EOF
>
> This produces the following output (timestamps removed)
>
> ============================================================
> ==================== suite (1 subtest) =====================
> =========================== case ===========================
> ====================== [PASSED] case =======================
> ====================== [PASSED] suite ======================
> ============================================================
>
> Should we surface some sort of error here?
I thought about this a bit (and started prototyping it), and think the
answer is probably "no" (or, perhaps, "optionally"). Largely because I
think it'd be technically valid to have, e.g., a parameterised test
whose generator function can legitimately provide zero subtests. And
while that's probably worth warning about if it's the only test
running, if you're trying to run all tests, and one random subtest of
a test of a suite has no subtests, that seems like it'd be more
annoying to error on than anything else.
That being said, I'm not opposed to implementing it as an option, or
at least having the test status set to NO_ERROR. The implementation
I've experimented with basically moves the check to "parse_test", and
errors if the number of subtests is 0 after parsing, if parent_test is
true (or main, but my rough plan was to make main imply parent_test,
and adjust the various conditions to match). I haven't looked into
exactly how this is bubbled up yet, but I'd be okay with having an
error if there are no tests run at all.
I'll keep playing with this anyway: it's definitely a bit more of a
minefield than I'd originally thought. :-)
-- David
>
>
> > return False
> > test.log.append(lines.pop())
> > expected_count = int(match.group(1))
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
> > index 9c4126731457..bc8793145713 100755
> > --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
> > +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
> > @@ -191,7 +191,10 @@ class KUnitParserTest(unittest.TestCase):
> > result = kunit_parser.parse_run_tests(
> > kunit_parser.extract_tap_lines(
> > file.readlines()))
> > - self.assertEqual(2, result.test.counts.errors)
> > + # A missing test plan is not an error.
> > + self.assertEqual(0, result.test.counts.errors)
> > + # All tests should be accounted for.
> > + self.assertEqual(10, result.test.counts.total())
> > self.assertEqual(
> > kunit_parser.TestStatus.SUCCESS,
> > result.status)
> > --
> > 2.33.0.1079.g6e70778dc9-goog
> >
On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 11:10 PM David Gow <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 9:29 AM Daniel Latypov <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 11:28 PM David Gow <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > The (K)TAP spec encourages test output to begin with a 'test plan': a
> > > count of the number of tests being run of the form:
> > > 1..n
> > >
> > > However, some test suites might not know the number of subtests in
> > > advance (for example, KUnit's parameterised tests use a generator
> > > function). In this case, it's not possible to print the test plan in
> > > advance.
> > >
> > > kunit_tool already parses test output which doesn't contain a plan, but
> > > reports an error. Since we want to use nested subtests with KUnit
> > > paramterised tests, remove this error.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: David Gow <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py | 5 ++---
> > > tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py | 5 ++++-
> > > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py
> > > index 3355196d0515..50ded55c168c 100644
> > > --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py
> > > @@ -340,8 +340,8 @@ def parse_test_plan(lines: LineStream, test: Test) -> bool:
> > > """
> > > Parses test plan line and stores the expected number of subtests in
> > > test object. Reports an error if expected count is 0.
> > > - Returns False and reports missing test plan error if fails to parse
> > > - test plan.
> > > + Returns False and sets expected_count to None if there is no valid test
> > > + plan.
> > >
> > > Accepted format:
> > > - '1..[number of subtests]'
> > > @@ -356,7 +356,6 @@ def parse_test_plan(lines: LineStream, test: Test) -> bool:
> > > match = TEST_PLAN.match(lines.peek())
> > > if not match:
> > > test.expected_count = None
> > > - test.add_error('missing plan line!')
> >
> > This works well, but there's an edge case.
> >
> > This patch means we no longer print an error when there are no test
> > cases in a subtest.
> > We relied on a check just a bit lower in this function.
> >
> > Consider
> >
> > $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py parse <<EOF
> > TAP version 14
> > 1..1
> > # Subtest: suite
> > 1..1
> > # Subtest: case
> > ok 1 - case
> > ok 1 - suite
> > EOF
> >
> > This produces the following output (timestamps removed)
> >
> > ============================================================
> > ==================== suite (1 subtest) =====================
> > =========================== case ===========================
> > ====================== [PASSED] case =======================
> > ====================== [PASSED] suite ======================
> > ============================================================
> >
> > Should we surface some sort of error here?
>
> I thought about this a bit (and started prototyping it), and think the
> answer is probably "no" (or, perhaps, "optionally"). Largely because I
> think it'd be technically valid to have, e.g., a parameterised test
> whose generator function can legitimately provide zero subtests. And
That's the question. Should we report PASSED in that case as we do now?
Let's consider parameterised tests, our only current example in KUnit.
I think in most cases, it's a bug that if we got 0 cases and we should
let the user know somehow.
Should it be an error/warning? Maybe not, but wouldn't it be better to
report SKIPPED?
(This would require a change in KUnit on the kernel side, I'm not
suggesting we do this in the parser)
> while that's probably worth warning about if it's the only test
> running, if you're trying to run all tests, and one random subtest of
> a test of a suite has no subtests, that seems like it'd be more
> annoying to error on than anything else.
>
> That being said, I'm not opposed to implementing it as an option, or
> at least having the test status set to NO_ERROR. The implementation
> I've experimented with basically moves the check to "parse_test", and
> errors if the number of subtests is 0 after parsing, if parent_test is
> true (or main, but my rough plan was to make main imply parent_test,
> and adjust the various conditions to match). I haven't looked into
> exactly how this is bubbled up yet, but I'd be okay with having an
> error if there are no tests run at all.
>
> I'll keep playing with this anyway: it's definitely a bit more of a
> minefield than I'd originally thought. :-)
>
> -- David
>
> >
> >
> > > return False
> > > test.log.append(lines.pop())
> > > expected_count = int(match.group(1))
> > > diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
> > > index 9c4126731457..bc8793145713 100755
> > > --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
> > > @@ -191,7 +191,10 @@ class KUnitParserTest(unittest.TestCase):
> > > result = kunit_parser.parse_run_tests(
> > > kunit_parser.extract_tap_lines(
> > > file.readlines()))
> > > - self.assertEqual(2, result.test.counts.errors)
> > > + # A missing test plan is not an error.
> > > + self.assertEqual(0, result.test.counts.errors)
> > > + # All tests should be accounted for.
> > > + self.assertEqual(10, result.test.counts.total())
> > > self.assertEqual(
> > > kunit_parser.TestStatus.SUCCESS,
> > > result.status)
> > > --
> > > 2.33.0.1079.g6e70778dc9-goog
> > >
On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 6:42 AM Daniel Latypov <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 11:10 PM David Gow <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 9:29 AM Daniel Latypov <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 11:28 PM David Gow <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The (K)TAP spec encourages test output to begin with a 'test plan': a
> > > > count of the number of tests being run of the form:
> > > > 1..n
> > > >
> > > > However, some test suites might not know the number of subtests in
> > > > advance (for example, KUnit's parameterised tests use a generator
> > > > function). In this case, it's not possible to print the test plan in
> > > > advance.
> > > >
> > > > kunit_tool already parses test output which doesn't contain a plan, but
> > > > reports an error. Since we want to use nested subtests with KUnit
> > > > paramterised tests, remove this error.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: David Gow <[email protected]>
> > > > ---
> > > > tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py | 5 ++---
> > > > tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py | 5 ++++-
> > > > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py
> > > > index 3355196d0515..50ded55c168c 100644
> > > > --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py
> > > > +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py
> > > > @@ -340,8 +340,8 @@ def parse_test_plan(lines: LineStream, test: Test) -> bool:
> > > > """
> > > > Parses test plan line and stores the expected number of subtests in
> > > > test object. Reports an error if expected count is 0.
> > > > - Returns False and reports missing test plan error if fails to parse
> > > > - test plan.
> > > > + Returns False and sets expected_count to None if there is no valid test
> > > > + plan.
> > > >
> > > > Accepted format:
> > > > - '1..[number of subtests]'
> > > > @@ -356,7 +356,6 @@ def parse_test_plan(lines: LineStream, test: Test) -> bool:
> > > > match = TEST_PLAN.match(lines.peek())
> > > > if not match:
> > > > test.expected_count = None
> > > > - test.add_error('missing plan line!')
> > >
> > > This works well, but there's an edge case.
> > >
> > > This patch means we no longer print an error when there are no test
> > > cases in a subtest.
> > > We relied on a check just a bit lower in this function.
> > >
> > > Consider
> > >
> > > $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py parse <<EOF
> > > TAP version 14
> > > 1..1
> > > # Subtest: suite
> > > 1..1
> > > # Subtest: case
> > > ok 1 - case
> > > ok 1 - suite
> > > EOF
> > >
> > > This produces the following output (timestamps removed)
> > >
> > > ============================================================
> > > ==================== suite (1 subtest) =====================
> > > =========================== case ===========================
> > > ====================== [PASSED] case =======================
> > > ====================== [PASSED] suite ======================
> > > ============================================================
> > >
> > > Should we surface some sort of error here?
> >
> > I thought about this a bit (and started prototyping it), and think the
> > answer is probably "no" (or, perhaps, "optionally"). Largely because I
> > think it'd be technically valid to have, e.g., a parameterised test
> > whose generator function can legitimately provide zero subtests. And
>
> That's the question. Should we report PASSED in that case as we do now?
>
> Let's consider parameterised tests, our only current example in KUnit.
>
> I think in most cases, it's a bug that if we got 0 cases and we should
> let the user know somehow.
> Should it be an error/warning? Maybe not, but wouldn't it be better to
> report SKIPPED?
> (This would require a change in KUnit on the kernel side, I'm not
> suggesting we do this in the parser)
>
Yeah: there are two sorf-of separable decisions here:
1) What result should a test with no subtests return?
2) Do we want to trigger any other errors/warnings.
I think the answer to 1 is that kunit_tool should report the result
printed in the KTAP output. I agree that, for parameterised tests,
though, that SKIPPED makes more sense than PASSED. (kunit_tool has a
separate NO_TESTS result, which we could maybe try to generate and
handle explicitly. I think we might as well leave that for the "no
tests run at all" case for now.)
For 2, I feel that this definitely should count as a "warning", but
all we have at the moment are "errors", which I feel is probably a bit
too strong a term for this. Given errors don't actually halt parsing,
I'm okay with generating them in kunit_tool in this case, but I'd
probably slightly prefer to leave it with SKIPPED, and maybe add a
warning later.
> > while that's probably worth warning about if it's the only test
> > running, if you're trying to run all tests, and one random subtest of
> > a test of a suite has no subtests, that seems like it'd be more
> > annoying to error on than anything else.
> >
> > That being said, I'm not opposed to implementing it as an option, or
> > at least having the test status set to NO_ERROR. The implementation
> > I've experimented with basically moves the check to "parse_test", and
> > errors if the number of subtests is 0 after parsing, if parent_test is
> > true (or main, but my rough plan was to make main imply parent_test,
> > and adjust the various conditions to match). I haven't looked into
> > exactly how this is bubbled up yet, but I'd be okay with having an
> > error if there are no tests run at all.
> >
> > I'll keep playing with this anyway: it's definitely a bit more of a
> > minefield than I'd originally thought. :-)
> >
> > -- David
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > return False
> > > > test.log.append(lines.pop())
> > > > expected_count = int(match.group(1))
> > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
> > > > index 9c4126731457..bc8793145713 100755
> > > > --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
> > > > +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
> > > > @@ -191,7 +191,10 @@ class KUnitParserTest(unittest.TestCase):
> > > > result = kunit_parser.parse_run_tests(
> > > > kunit_parser.extract_tap_lines(
> > > > file.readlines()))
> > > > - self.assertEqual(2, result.test.counts.errors)
> > > > + # A missing test plan is not an error.
> > > > + self.assertEqual(0, result.test.counts.errors)
> > > > + # All tests should be accounted for.
> > > > + self.assertEqual(10, result.test.counts.total())
> > > > self.assertEqual(
> > > > kunit_parser.TestStatus.SUCCESS,
> > > > result.status)
> > > > --
> > > > 2.33.0.1079.g6e70778dc9-goog
> > > >
On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 3:41 PM Daniel Latypov <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 11:10 PM David Gow <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 9:29 AM Daniel Latypov <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 11:28 PM David Gow <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The (K)TAP spec encourages test output to begin with a 'test plan': a
> > > > count of the number of tests being run of the form:
> > > > 1..n
> > > >
> > > > However, some test suites might not know the number of subtests in
> > > > advance (for example, KUnit's parameterised tests use a generator
> > > > function). In this case, it's not possible to print the test plan in
> > > > advance.
> > > >
> > > > kunit_tool already parses test output which doesn't contain a plan, but
> > > > reports an error. Since we want to use nested subtests with KUnit
> > > > paramterised tests, remove this error.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: David Gow <[email protected]>
> > > > ---
> > > > tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py | 5 ++---
> > > > tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py | 5 ++++-
> > > > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py
> > > > index 3355196d0515..50ded55c168c 100644
> > > > --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py
> > > > +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py
> > > > @@ -340,8 +340,8 @@ def parse_test_plan(lines: LineStream, test: Test) -> bool:
> > > > """
> > > > Parses test plan line and stores the expected number of subtests in
> > > > test object. Reports an error if expected count is 0.
> > > > - Returns False and reports missing test plan error if fails to parse
> > > > - test plan.
> > > > + Returns False and sets expected_count to None if there is no valid test
> > > > + plan.
> > > >
> > > > Accepted format:
> > > > - '1..[number of subtests]'
> > > > @@ -356,7 +356,6 @@ def parse_test_plan(lines: LineStream, test: Test) -> bool:
> > > > match = TEST_PLAN.match(lines.peek())
> > > > if not match:
> > > > test.expected_count = None
> > > > - test.add_error('missing plan line!')
> > >
> > > This works well, but there's an edge case.
> > >
> > > This patch means we no longer print an error when there are no test
> > > cases in a subtest.
> > > We relied on a check just a bit lower in this function.
> > >
> > > Consider
> > >
> > > $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py parse <<EOF
> > > TAP version 14
> > > 1..1
> > > # Subtest: suite
> > > 1..1
> > > # Subtest: case
> > > ok 1 - case
> > > ok 1 - suite
> > > EOF
> > >
> > > This produces the following output (timestamps removed)
> > >
> > > ============================================================
> > > ==================== suite (1 subtest) =====================
> > > =========================== case ===========================
> > > ====================== [PASSED] case =======================
> > > ====================== [PASSED] suite ======================
> > > ============================================================
> > >
> > > Should we surface some sort of error here?
> >
> > I thought about this a bit (and started prototyping it), and think the
> > answer is probably "no" (or, perhaps, "optionally"). Largely because I
> > think it'd be technically valid to have, e.g., a parameterised test
> > whose generator function can legitimately provide zero subtests. And
>
> That's the question. Should we report PASSED in that case as we do now?
>
> Let's consider parameterised tests, our only current example in KUnit.
>
> I think in most cases, it's a bug that if we got 0 cases and we should
> let the user know somehow.
Actually, when I tried to pass in an empty parameter array, I get a segfault.
So I guess we *do* let the user know somehow :)
The root cause: we call test_case->run_case(test), but the
test->param_value == NULL.
So the test code will segfault whenever it tries to read from param_value.
A hacky fix:
diff --git a/lib/kunit/test.c b/lib/kunit/test.c
index 85265f9a66a1..e55f842ae355 100644
--- a/lib/kunit/test.c
+++ b/lib/kunit/test.c
@@ -513,6 +513,8 @@ int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite)
}
do {
+ if (test_case->generate_params && !test.param_value)
+ break; // there were no parameters generated!
kunit_run_case_catch_errors(suite, test_case, &test);
if (test_case->generate_params) {
> Should it be an error/warning? Maybe not, but wouldn't it be better to
> report SKIPPED?
> (This would require a change in KUnit on the kernel side, I'm not
> suggesting we do this in the parser)
Being a bit more concrete, I was originally thinking of the following:
diff --git a/lib/kunit/test.c b/lib/kunit/test.c
index 85265f9a66a1..3f7141a72308 100644
--- a/lib/kunit/test.c
+++ b/lib/kunit/test.c
@@ -537,6 +537,9 @@ int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite)
} while (test.param_value);
+ if (param_stats.total == 0)
+ test_case->status = KUNIT_SKIPPED;
+
kunit_print_test_stats(&test, param_stats);
kunit_print_ok_not_ok(&test, true, test_case->status,
But tacking onto the hacky fix above, it could look like
diff --git a/lib/kunit/test.c b/lib/kunit/test.c
index 85265f9a66a1..a2d93b44ef88 100644
--- a/lib/kunit/test.c
+++ b/lib/kunit/test.c
@@ -513,6 +513,13 @@ int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite)
}
do {
+ if (test_case->generate_params && !test.param_value) {
+ strncpy(test.status_comment,"No test
parameters generated",
+ sizeof(test.status_comment));
+ test_case->status = KUNIT_SKIPPED;
+ break;
+ }
+
kunit_run_case_catch_errors(suite, test_case, &test);
if (test_case->generate_params) {
>
> > while that's probably worth warning about if it's the only test
> > running, if you're trying to run all tests, and one random subtest of
> > a test of a suite has no subtests, that seems like it'd be more
> > annoying to error on than anything else.
> >
> > That being said, I'm not opposed to implementing it as an option, or
> > at least having the test status set to NO_ERROR. The implementation
> > I've experimented with basically moves the check to "parse_test", and
> > errors if the number of subtests is 0 after parsing, if parent_test is
> > true (or main, but my rough plan was to make main imply parent_test,
> > and adjust the various conditions to match). I haven't looked into
> > exactly how this is bubbled up yet, but I'd be okay with having an
> > error if there are no tests run at all.
> >
> > I'll keep playing with this anyway: it's definitely a bit more of a
> > minefield than I'd originally thought. :-)
> >
> > -- David
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > return False
> > > > test.log.append(lines.pop())
> > > > expected_count = int(match.group(1))
> > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
> > > > index 9c4126731457..bc8793145713 100755
> > > > --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
> > > > +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
> > > > @@ -191,7 +191,10 @@ class KUnitParserTest(unittest.TestCase):
> > > > result = kunit_parser.parse_run_tests(
> > > > kunit_parser.extract_tap_lines(
> > > > file.readlines()))
> > > > - self.assertEqual(2, result.test.counts.errors)
> > > > + # A missing test plan is not an error.
> > > > + self.assertEqual(0, result.test.counts.errors)
> > > > + # All tests should be accounted for.
> > > > + self.assertEqual(10, result.test.counts.total())
> > > > self.assertEqual(
> > > > kunit_parser.TestStatus.SUCCESS,
> > > > result.status)
> > > > --
> > > > 2.33.0.1079.g6e70778dc9-goog
> > > >
On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 5:25 PM David Gow <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 6:42 AM Daniel Latypov <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 11:10 PM David Gow <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 9:29 AM Daniel Latypov <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 11:28 PM David Gow <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The (K)TAP spec encourages test output to begin with a 'test plan': a
> > > > > count of the number of tests being run of the form:
> > > > > 1..n
> > > > >
> > > > > However, some test suites might not know the number of subtests in
> > > > > advance (for example, KUnit's parameterised tests use a generator
> > > > > function). In this case, it's not possible to print the test plan in
> > > > > advance.
> > > > >
> > > > > kunit_tool already parses test output which doesn't contain a plan, but
> > > > > reports an error. Since we want to use nested subtests with KUnit
> > > > > paramterised tests, remove this error.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: David Gow <[email protected]>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py | 5 ++---
> > > > > tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py | 5 ++++-
> > > > > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py
> > > > > index 3355196d0515..50ded55c168c 100644
> > > > > --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py
> > > > > +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py
> > > > > @@ -340,8 +340,8 @@ def parse_test_plan(lines: LineStream, test: Test) -> bool:
> > > > > """
> > > > > Parses test plan line and stores the expected number of subtests in
> > > > > test object. Reports an error if expected count is 0.
> > > > > - Returns False and reports missing test plan error if fails to parse
> > > > > - test plan.
> > > > > + Returns False and sets expected_count to None if there is no valid test
> > > > > + plan.
> > > > >
> > > > > Accepted format:
> > > > > - '1..[number of subtests]'
> > > > > @@ -356,7 +356,6 @@ def parse_test_plan(lines: LineStream, test: Test) -> bool:
> > > > > match = TEST_PLAN.match(lines.peek())
> > > > > if not match:
> > > > > test.expected_count = None
> > > > > - test.add_error('missing plan line!')
> > > >
> > > > This works well, but there's an edge case.
> > > >
> > > > This patch means we no longer print an error when there are no test
> > > > cases in a subtest.
> > > > We relied on a check just a bit lower in this function.
> > > >
> > > > Consider
> > > >
> > > > $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py parse <<EOF
> > > > TAP version 14
> > > > 1..1
> > > > # Subtest: suite
> > > > 1..1
> > > > # Subtest: case
> > > > ok 1 - case
> > > > ok 1 - suite
> > > > EOF
> > > >
> > > > This produces the following output (timestamps removed)
> > > >
> > > > ============================================================
> > > > ==================== suite (1 subtest) =====================
> > > > =========================== case ===========================
> > > > ====================== [PASSED] case =======================
> > > > ====================== [PASSED] suite ======================
> > > > ============================================================
> > > >
> > > > Should we surface some sort of error here?
> > >
> > > I thought about this a bit (and started prototyping it), and think the
> > > answer is probably "no" (or, perhaps, "optionally"). Largely because I
> > > think it'd be technically valid to have, e.g., a parameterised test
> > > whose generator function can legitimately provide zero subtests. And
> >
> > That's the question. Should we report PASSED in that case as we do now?
> >
> > Let's consider parameterised tests, our only current example in KUnit.
> >
> > I think in most cases, it's a bug that if we got 0 cases and we should
> > let the user know somehow.
> > Should it be an error/warning? Maybe not, but wouldn't it be better to
> > report SKIPPED?
> > (This would require a change in KUnit on the kernel side, I'm not
> > suggesting we do this in the parser)
> >
>
> Yeah: there are two sorf-of separable decisions here:
> 1) What result should a test with no subtests return?
> 2) Do we want to trigger any other errors/warnings.
>
> I think the answer to 1 is that kunit_tool should report the result
> printed in the KTAP output. I agree that, for parameterised tests,
> though, that SKIPPED makes more sense than PASSED. (kunit_tool has a
> separate NO_TESTS result, which we could maybe try to generate and
> handle explicitly. I think we might as well leave that for the "no
> tests run at all" case for now.)
>
> For 2, I feel that this definitely should count as a "warning", but
> all we have at the moment are "errors", which I feel is probably a bit
> too strong a term for this. Given errors don't actually halt parsing,
> I'm okay with generating them in kunit_tool in this case, but I'd
> probably slightly prefer to leave it with SKIPPED, and maybe add a
> warning later.
I am OK marking it as SKIPPED, but I like the idea of promoting it to
a warning in a future change.
Completely ignoring an empty test suite seems wrong, especially when
we *do* complain when there *is* a test plan, and not all test cases
are accounted for.
My 2c.
> > > while that's probably worth warning about if it's the only test
> > > running, if you're trying to run all tests, and one random subtest of
> > > a test of a suite has no subtests, that seems like it'd be more
> > > annoying to error on than anything else.
> > >
> > > That being said, I'm not opposed to implementing it as an option, or
> > > at least having the test status set to NO_ERROR. The implementation
> > > I've experimented with basically moves the check to "parse_test", and
> > > errors if the number of subtests is 0 after parsing, if parent_test is
> > > true (or main, but my rough plan was to make main imply parent_test,
> > > and adjust the various conditions to match). I haven't looked into
> > > exactly how this is bubbled up yet, but I'd be okay with having an
> > > error if there are no tests run at all.
> > >
> > > I'll keep playing with this anyway: it's definitely a bit more of a
> > > minefield than I'd originally thought. :-)
> > >
> > > -- David
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > return False
> > > > > test.log.append(lines.pop())
> > > > > expected_count = int(match.group(1))
> > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
> > > > > index 9c4126731457..bc8793145713 100755
> > > > > --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
> > > > > +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
> > > > > @@ -191,7 +191,10 @@ class KUnitParserTest(unittest.TestCase):
> > > > > result = kunit_parser.parse_run_tests(
> > > > > kunit_parser.extract_tap_lines(
> > > > > file.readlines()))
> > > > > - self.assertEqual(2, result.test.counts.errors)
> > > > > + # A missing test plan is not an error.
> > > > > + self.assertEqual(0, result.test.counts.errors)
> > > > > + # All tests should be accounted for.
> > > > > + self.assertEqual(10, result.test.counts.total())
> > > > > self.assertEqual(
> > > > > kunit_parser.TestStatus.SUCCESS,
> > > > > result.status)
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.33.0.1079.g6e70778dc9-goog
> > > > >