Às 13:12 de 02/08/22, Maíra Canal escreveu:
> Increament the example_all_expect_macros_test with the
> KUNIT_EXPECT_ARREQ and KUNIT_EXPECT_ARRNEQ macros by creating a test
> with array assertions.
>
> Signed-off-by: Maíra Canal <[email protected]>
> ---
> lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c | 7 +++++++
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c b/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c
> index f8fe582c9e36..fc81a45d9cbc 100644
> --- a/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c
> +++ b/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c
> @@ -86,6 +86,9 @@ static void example_mark_skipped_test(struct kunit *test)
> */
> static void example_all_expect_macros_test(struct kunit *test)
> {
> + const u32 array[] = { 0x0F, 0xFF };
> + const u32 expected[] = { 0x1F, 0xFF };
> +
> /* Boolean assertions */
> KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, true);
> KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, false);
> @@ -109,6 +112,10 @@ static void example_all_expect_macros_test(struct kunit *test)
> KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, "hi", "hi");
> KUNIT_EXPECT_STRNEQ(test, "hi", "bye");
>
> + /* Array assertions */
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_ARREQ(test, expected, expected, 2);
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_ARRNEQ(test, array, expected, 2);
ARRAY_SIZE() is usually better than constants is this case.
> +
> /*
> * There are also ASSERT variants of all of the above that abort test
> * execution if they fail. Useful for memory allocations, etc.
On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 9:19 AM André Almeida <[email protected]> wrote:
> Às 13:12 de 02/08/22, Maíra Canal escreveu:
> > Increament the example_all_expect_macros_test with the
> > KUNIT_EXPECT_ARREQ and KUNIT_EXPECT_ARRNEQ macros by creating a test
> > with array assertions.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Maíra Canal <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c | 7 +++++++
> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c b/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c
> > index f8fe582c9e36..fc81a45d9cbc 100644
> > --- a/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c
> > +++ b/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c
> > @@ -86,6 +86,9 @@ static void example_mark_skipped_test(struct kunit *test)
> > */
> > static void example_all_expect_macros_test(struct kunit *test)
> > {
> > + const u32 array[] = { 0x0F, 0xFF };
> > + const u32 expected[] = { 0x1F, 0xFF };
Given the distance between the definition and their use, perhaps we
can give them clearer names.
E.g. array + diff_array, or array1 + array2, etc.
I think something to indicate they're arrays and that they're different.
The current name `expected` is a bit unclear.
> > +
> > /* Boolean assertions */
> > KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, true);
> > KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, false);
> > @@ -109,6 +112,10 @@ static void example_all_expect_macros_test(struct kunit *test)
> > KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, "hi", "hi");
> > KUNIT_EXPECT_STRNEQ(test, "hi", "bye");
> >
> > + /* Array assertions */
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_ARREQ(test, expected, expected, 2);
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_ARRNEQ(test, array, expected, 2);
>
> ARRAY_SIZE() is usually better than constants is this case.
Note: that's actually incorrect!
Ah right, this was the other blocker I had in mind.
I wasn't sure how we'd handle the size parameter.
Users might think ARRAY_SIZE() is fine and copy-paste it.
But the size parameter is in units of bytes, not array elements!
If the element types are not 1 byte, it'll silently not compare the full array.
We'd want people to use
KUNIT_EXPECT_ARREQ(test, expected, expected, sizeof(expected));
But this doesn't work for `u32 *array`, since it'll silently just
compare 1 byte if people get them mixed up.
I don't know how we make a maximally fool-proof version of this macro :\
On 8/2/22 15:15, 'Daniel Latypov' via KUnit Development wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 9:19 AM André Almeida <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Às 13:12 de 02/08/22, Maíra Canal escreveu:
>>> Increament the example_all_expect_macros_test with the
>>> KUNIT_EXPECT_ARREQ and KUNIT_EXPECT_ARRNEQ macros by creating a test
>>> with array assertions.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Maíra Canal <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c | 7 +++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c b/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c
>>> index f8fe582c9e36..fc81a45d9cbc 100644
>>> --- a/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c
>>> +++ b/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c
>>> @@ -86,6 +86,9 @@ static void example_mark_skipped_test(struct kunit *test)
>>> */
>>> static void example_all_expect_macros_test(struct kunit *test)
>>> {
>>> + const u32 array[] = { 0x0F, 0xFF };
>>> + const u32 expected[] = { 0x1F, 0xFF };
>
> Given the distance between the definition and their use, perhaps we
> can give them clearer names.
> E.g. array + diff_array, or array1 + array2, etc.
>
> I think something to indicate they're arrays and that they're different.
> The current name `expected` is a bit unclear.
Thank you for the note, I'll address it at v2.
>
>>> +
>>> /* Boolean assertions */
>>> KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, true);
>>> KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, false);
>>> @@ -109,6 +112,10 @@ static void example_all_expect_macros_test(struct kunit *test)
>>> KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, "hi", "hi");
>>> KUNIT_EXPECT_STRNEQ(test, "hi", "bye");
>>>
>>> + /* Array assertions */
>>> + KUNIT_EXPECT_ARREQ(test, expected, expected, 2);
>>> + KUNIT_EXPECT_ARRNEQ(test, array, expected, 2);
>>
>> ARRAY_SIZE() is usually better than constants is this case.
>
> Note: that's actually incorrect!
>
Yep, that's my bad!
> Ah right, this was the other blocker I had in mind.
> I wasn't sure how we'd handle the size parameter.
>
> Users might think ARRAY_SIZE() is fine and copy-paste it.
> But the size parameter is in units of bytes, not array elements!
> If the element types are not 1 byte, it'll silently not compare the full array.
>
> We'd want people to use
> KUNIT_EXPECT_ARREQ(test, expected, expected, sizeof(expected));
>
> But this doesn't work for `u32 *array`, since it'll silently just
> compare 1 byte if people get them mixed up.
>
> I don't know how we make a maximally fool-proof version of this macro :\
This is a hard one also. I believe that use KUNIT_EXPECT_ARREQ(test,
expected, expected, sizeof(expected)); is more compliant to the
memcpy/memset/memcmp signature. Moreover, this problem also occur for
the KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, memcmp(expected, expected, sizeof(expected)), 0);
I believe that the number of array elements will make it easier for
users to avoid mistakes.
I'll change it internally for size_bytes = (size) * sizeof((left)[0]) on v2.
Best Regards,
- Maíra Canal
>
On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 12:00 PM Maíra Canal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I don't know how we make a maximally fool-proof version of this macro :\
>
> This is a hard one also. I believe that use KUNIT_EXPECT_ARREQ(test,
> expected, expected, sizeof(expected)); is more compliant to the
> memcpy/memset/memcmp signature. Moreover, this problem also occur for
> the KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, memcmp(expected, expected, sizeof(expected)), 0);
>
> I believe that the number of array elements will make it easier for
> users to avoid mistakes.
Actually, another idea: perhaps KUNIT_EXPECT_MEMEQ?
I think that might be clearer in terms of the semantics and people
could more easily infer the right unit (bytes).
Daniel