Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20221109003618.3784591-1-dlatypov@google.com> <20221109003618.3784591-2-dlatypov@google.com>
 <CAO2JNKUTiVM8YPgy0nz7W1GJtSVURhc1YkMgUWgs-rShNY0Zaw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO2JNKUTiVM8YPgy0nz7W1GJtSVURhc1YkMgUWgs-rShNY0Zaw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Nov 2022 08:04:12 -0800
Message-ID: <CAGS_qxqPUHWyJ4nNQRdm79sMwHwysHV=99WXzMsY=g_WzSjZaw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] Documentation: KUnit: reword description of assertions
To:     Sadiya Kazi <sadiyakazi@google.com>
Cc:     brendanhiggins@google.com, davidgow@google.com, rmoar@google.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        skhan@linuxfoundation.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 9:07 PM Sadiya Kazi <sadiyakazi@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 6:06 AM 'Daniel Latypov' via KUnit Development
> <kunit-dev@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> >
> > The existing wording implies that kunit_kmalloc_array() is "the method
> > under test". We're actually testing the sort() function in that example.
> > This is because the example was changed in commit 953574390634
> > ("Documentation: KUnit: Rework writing page to focus on writing tests"),
> > but the wording was not.
> >
> > Also add a `note` telling people they can use the KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ()
> > macros from any function. Some users might be coming from a framework
> > like gUnit where that'll compile but silently do the wrong thing.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
> > ---
>
> Thank you, Daniel. This looks fine to me except for a small typo in
> this line "to abort
> the test if we there's an allocation error". Also, I have reworded
> that paragraph a bit
> as below. Please feel free to ignore, if you do not agree:
>
> In this example, to test the ``sort()`` function, we must be able to
> allocate an array.
> If there is an allocation error, the test is terminated using the function
> ``KUNIT ASSERT NOT ERR OR NULL()``.

Thanks for catching that.

Hmm, I slightly prefer the current structure since I like having the
<thing> being described near the start of the sentence as opposed to
the very end.
I'll wait a bit before sending a v3 to give time for anyone else to
chime in, if they want.

Snipping the email to the block in question:

> > +In this example, we need to be able to allocate an array to test the ``sort()``
> > +function. So we use ``KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL()`` to abort the test if
> > +we there's an allocation error.