Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-168757-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Message-ID: <f069c4b4-e358-4eac-9780-9ca9c598f7ae@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 4 May 2024 17:45:05 +0100
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kunit: Cover 'assert.c' with tests
From: Ivan Orlov <ivan.orlov0322@gmail.com>
To: Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com>
Cc: brendan.higgins@linux.dev, davidgow@google.com,
 linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, skhan@linuxfoundation.org
References: <20240427220447.231475-1-ivan.orlov0322@gmail.com>
 <CA+GJov45uEfrXVWSUxvzOLYKPCnTeYeGqHvk=W4n-W_TLYyRuQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <89c0f7c2-145c-4d4c-a330-f0fff5bb4098@gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <89c0f7c2-145c-4d4c-a330-f0fff5bb4098@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 5/3/24 12:10, Ivan Orlov wrote:
> On 5/2/24 00:20, Rae Moar wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 6:04 PM Ivan Orlov <ivan.orlov0322@gmail.com> 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> There are multiple assertion formatting functions in the `assert.c`
>>> file, which are not covered with tests yet. Implement the KUnit test
>>> for these functions.
>>>
>>> The test consists of 11 test cases for the following functions:
>>>
>>> 1) 'is_literal'
>>> 2) 'is_str_literal'
>>> 3) 'kunit_assert_prologue', test case for multiple assert types
>>> 4) 'kunit_assert_print_msg'
>>> 5) 'kunit_unary_assert_format'
>>> 6) 'kunit_ptr_not_err_assert_format'
>>> 7) 'kunit_binary_assert_format'
>>> 8) 'kunit_binary_ptr_assert_format'
>>> 9) 'kunit_binary_str_assert_format'
>>> 10) 'kunit_assert_hexdump'
>>> 11) 'kunit_mem_assert_format'
>>>
>>> The test aims at maximizing the branch coverage for the assertion
>>> formatting functions. As you can see, it covers some of the static
>>> helper functions as well, so we have to import the test source in the
>>> `assert.c` file in order to be able to call and validate them.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ivan Orlov <ivan.orlov0322@gmail.com>
>>
>> Hello!
>>
>> This is a great patch and addition of KUnit tests. Happy to see it.
>> Thank you very much!
>>
>> I do have a few comments below. But none of them are deal breakers.
> 
> 
> Hi Rae,
> 
> Thank you so much for the detailed review.
> 
>>
>>> ---
>>>   lib/kunit/assert.c      |   4 +
>>>   lib/kunit/assert_test.c | 416 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>   2 files changed, 420 insertions(+)
>>>   create mode 100644 lib/kunit/assert_test.c
>>>
>>> diff --git a/lib/kunit/assert.c b/lib/kunit/assert.c
>>> index dd1d633d0fe2..ab68c6daf546 100644
>>> --- a/lib/kunit/assert.c
>>> +++ b/lib/kunit/assert.c
>>> @@ -270,3 +270,7 @@ void kunit_mem_assert_format(const struct 
>>> kunit_assert *assert,
>>>          }
>>>   }
>>>   EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kunit_mem_assert_format);
>>> +
>>> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KUNIT_TEST)
>>> +#include "assert_test.c"
>>> +#endif
>>
>> I might consider using the macro VISIBLE_IF_KUNIT macro, found in
>> include/kunit/visibility.h, to make the static functions in assert.c
>> visible only if KUnit is enabled. To avoid having to add the include
>> here. What do you think?
>>
> 
> Wow, I haven't seen this macro before, thank you for the suggestion! 
> I'll use it in the V2 of the patch.
> 
> I assume we need to use it in combination with EXPORT_SYMBOL_IF_KUNIT, 
> otherwise GCC will complain on use of functions without definitions, right?
> 

Ah, alright, it seems like GCC is going to complain on missing 
prototypes anyway, so we have to declare these static functions in the 
header file if CONFIG_KUNIT is defined.

-- 
Kind regards,
Ivan Orlov