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: <20210507050908.1008686-1-davidgow@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210507050908.1008686-1-davidgow@google.com>
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 7 May 2021 13:05:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CAFd5g44bot7S-Ya7s7QxnKfXHcy8WxUcNPsZuw_qWMaAQbqLCg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kunit: Do not typecheck binary assertions
To:     David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Cc:     Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
        kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 10:09 PM David Gow <davidgow@google.com> wrote:
>
> The use of typecheck() in KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ() and friends is causing more
> problems than I think it's worth. Things like enums need to have their
> values explicitly cast, and literals all need to be very precisely typed
> for the code to compile.

nit: I have not had the typecheck() call prevent any code from
compiling, just generating warnings. I guess you can have a build set
to cause any warning to be promoted to an error; still, I think this
statement is misleading.

> While typechecking does have its uses, the additional overhead of having
> lots of needless casts -- combined with the awkward error messages which
> don't mention which types are involved -- makes tests less readable and
> more difficult to write.
>
> By removing the typecheck() call, the two arguments still need to be of
> compatible types, but don't need to be of exactly the same time, which
> seems a less confusing and more useful compromise.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>

Looks good to me.

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

> ---
>
> I appreciate that this is probably a bit controversial (and, indeed, I
> was a bit hesitant about sending it out myself), but after sitting on it
> for a few days, I still think this is probably an improvement overall.
>
> The second patch does fix what I think is an actual bug, though, so even
> if this isn't determined to be a good idea, it (or some equivalent)
> should probably go through.

I don't remember being a huge fan of the typecheck when it was asked
for either. I think I am a little bit more indifferent than you;
nevertheless, I support this change.