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: <20230330220506.1399796-1-rmoar@google.com> <CAGS_qxqNwVcymkG6-8Kv72oZc9aDqjFjBBmjr+f+mOVKT1bGvA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGS_qxqNwVcymkG6-8Kv72oZc9aDqjFjBBmjr+f+mOVKT1bGvA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 Apr 2023 15:31:04 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+GJov5YigvgTf7ThaN9g8nOkoFKzJTiOLYO86cD5yVa2BEieg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] kunit: add tests for using current KUnit test field
To:     Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Cc:     brendanhiggins@google.com, davidgow@google.com,
        skhan@linuxfoundation.org, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 6:21=E2=80=AFPM 'Daniel Latypov' via KUnit Developm=
ent
<kunit-dev@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> I've got a few minor comments below, but this otherwise looks good.
> I like the idea of testing knuit_fail_current_test().
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 3:05=E2=80=AFPM Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com> wrote=
:
> >
> > +static void kunit_current_kunit_test_field(struct kunit *test)
> > +{
> > +       struct kunit *current_test;
> > +
> > +       /* Check to ensure the result of current->kunit_test
> > +        * is equivalent to current test.
> > +        */
> > +       current_test =3D current->kunit_test;
> > +       KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, current_test);
>
> Perhaps we can combine this and the next test case down to
> static void kunit_current_test(struct kunit *test) {
>   /* There are two different ways of getting the current test */
>   KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, current->kunit_test);
>   KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, kunit_get_current_test());
> }
> ?

Hi Daniel!

Yes, I would be happy to combine these for v2. I might want to alter
that proposed comment slightly. "Two different ways" seems a bit
unclear to me. Maybe: Check results of both current->kunit_test and
kunit_get_current_test() are equivalent to current test. What do you
think? I might send out a v2 with a proposed comment.

>
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void kunit_current_get_current_test(struct kunit *test)
> > +{
> > +       struct kunit *current_test1, *current_test2;
> > +
> > +       /* Check to ensure the result of kunit_get_current_test()
> > +        * is equivalent to current test.
> > +        */
> > +       current_test1 =3D kunit_get_current_test();
> > +       KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, current_test1);
> > +
> > +       /* Check to ensure the result of kunit_get_current_test()
> > +        * is equivalent to current->kunit_test.
> > +        */
> > +       current_test2 =3D current->kunit_test;
> > +       KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, current_test1, current_test2);
>
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void kunit_current_fail_current_test(struct kunit *test)
> > +{
> > +       struct kunit fake;
> > +
> > +       /* Initialize fake test and set as current->kunit_test. */
>
> Nit: I think the code is self-explanatory enough that we can drop this co=
mment.
>

I agree the "initialize fake test" comment is self-explanatory. But if
we keep the comment regarding resetting the current test, I think we
should mark when we set the test as a fake with a comment as well.

> > +       kunit_init_test(&fake, "fake test", NULL);
> > +       KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake.status, KUNIT_SUCCESS);
> > +       current->kunit_test =3D &fake;
> > +
> > +       /* Fail current test and expect status of fake test to be faile=
d. */
>
> Nit: I think this comment could also be dropped or maybe shortened to
>   kunit_fail_current_test("This should make `fake` fail");
>

This first option seems good to me.

> or
>   /* Now kunit_fail_current_test() should modify `fake`, not `test` */
>   kunit_fail_current_test("This should make `fake` fail");
>
> > +       kunit_fail_current_test("This test is supposed to fail.");
> > +       KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake.status, (enum kunit_status)KUNIT_FAI=
LURE);
> > +
>
> Hmm, should we try calling
>   kunit_cleanup(&fake);
> ?
>
> Right now this does resource cleanups, but we might have other state
> to cleanup for our `fake` test object in the future.
>

I would be fine to add this here if it is wanted.

Thanks Daniel for the comments!

Rae

> Daniel
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups=
 "KUnit Development" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an=
 email to kunit-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgi=
d/kunit-dev/CAGS_qxqNwVcymkG6-8Kv72oZc9aDqjFjBBmjr%2Bf%2BmOVKT1bGvA%40mail.=
gmail.com.