Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201123225759.3658122-1-dlatypov@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20201123225759.3658122-1-dlatypov@google.com>
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 30 Nov 2020 14:13:51 -0800
Message-ID: <CAFd5g44JgvUBZteUY=KVCiiD+yu1DtYE+phm4R4uxcH7N22Ffw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Documentation: kunit: provide guidance for testing
 many inputs
To:     Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Cc:     David Gow <davidgow@google.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 2:59 PM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> wrote:
>
> usage.rst goes into a detailed section about faking out classes, but
> currently lacks wording about how one might idiomatically test a range
> of inputs.
>
> Add a new chapter for "Common Patterns" and group "Isolating behvaior"
> and this new section under there.
>
> Give an example of how one might test a hash function via macros/helper
> funcs and a table-driven test and very briefly discuss pros and cons.
>
> Also highlight the KUNIT_EXPECT_*_MSG() variants (that aren't mentioned
> elsewhere [1]) which are particularly useful in these situations.
>
> It is also criminally underused at the moment, only appearing in 2
> tests (both written by people involved in KUnit).
>
> [1] not even on
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/dev-tools/kunit/api/test.html
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>

Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>