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>
 <CA+GJov5YigvgTf7ThaN9g8nOkoFKzJTiOLYO86cD5yVa2BEieg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+GJov5YigvgTf7ThaN9g8nOkoFKzJTiOLYO86cD5yVa2BEieg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 Apr 2023 16:09:18 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGS_qxqbdB-1OFUQWXb7XxODWfOWi5yMUCBFebOLmGOj0rMdyA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] kunit: add tests for using current KUnit test field
To:     Rae Moar <rmoar@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 Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 12:31=E2=80=AFPM Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 6:21=E2=80=AFPM 'Daniel Latypov' via KUnit Develo=
pment
> <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> wro=
te:
> > >
> > > +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.

What you went with in v2 works for me.
I'll take a look at the other changes in v2.

Thanks!
Daniel