Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-181558-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Message-ID: <7a190f66-3d55-4fad-aaa9-854b586ed5aa@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 21:14:22 +0100
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] kunit: Cover 'assert.c' with tests
To: Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com>
Cc: brendan.higgins@linux.dev, davidgow@google.com,
 linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, skhan@linuxfoundation.org
References: <20240515142056.1374495-1-ivan.orlov0322@gmail.com>
 <CA+GJov4e8K2gWbQQA_vZvWs34OZJ7biMTkOnGAhfidG4V_dPJg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Ivan Orlov <ivan.orlov0322@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+GJov4e8K2gWbQQA_vZvWs34OZJ7biMTkOnGAhfidG4V_dPJg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 5/16/24 19:57, Rae Moar wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 10:20 AM 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 mark the static functions in `assert.c` as 'VISIBLE_IF_KUNIT'
>> and conditionally export them with EXPORT_SYMBOL_IF_KUNIT. Add the
>> corresponding definitions to `assert.h`.
>>
>> Build the assert test when CONFIG_KUNIT_TEST is enabled, similar to
>> how it is done for the string stream test.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ivan Orlov <ivan.orlov0322@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> V1 -> V2:
>> - Check the output from the string stream for containing the key parts
>> instead of comparing the results with expected strings char by char, as
>> it was suggested by Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com>. Define two macros to
>> make it possible (ASSERT_TEST_EXPECT_CONTAIN and
>> ASSERT_TEST_EXPECT_NCONTAIN).
>> - Mark the static functions in `assert.c` as VISIBLE_IF_KUNIT and export
>> them conditionally if kunit is enabled instead of including the
>> `assert_test.c` file in the end of `assert.c`. This way we will decouple
>> the test from the implementation (SUT).
>> - Update the kunit_assert_hexdump test: now it checks for presense of
>> the brackets '<>' around the non-matching bytes, instead of comparing
>> the kunit_assert_hexdump output char by char.
>> V2 -> V3:
>> - Make test case array and test suite definitions static
>> - Change the condition in `assert.h`: we should declare VISIBLE_IF_KUNIT
>> functions in the header file when CONFIG_KUNIT is enabled, not
>> CONFIG_KUNIT_TEST. Otherwise, if CONFIG_KUNIT_TEST is disabled,
>> VISIBLE_IF_KUNIT functions in the `assert.c` are not static, and
>> prototypes for them can't be found.
>> - Add MODULE_LICENSE and MODULE_DESCRIPTION macros
>> V3 -> V4:
>> - Compile the assertion test only when CONFIG_KUNIT_TEST is set to 'y',
>> as it is done for the string-stream test. It is necessary since
>> functions from the string-stream are not exported into the public
>> namespace, and therefore they are not accessible when linking and
>> loading the test module.
> 
> Hi Ivan!
> 
> This looks great! Just one last thing, since this test is no longer
> loadable as a module, could you remove the exporting of new symbols
> and adding of the module license. Those can be part of the next patch,
> where we convert these tests to modules.
> 
> Thanks!
> -Rae
> 

Hi Rae,

Ah, sorry, I completely forgot to remove the module-related part. Thank 
you for the review, and I'll try to be more attentive next time :)

-- 
Kind regards,
Ivan Orlov