Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:9e8c:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id y12csp728320pxx; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 15:45:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzKdvIq4YWv3R3ScPv5VaXTPjipMuwLTGeAD+yrrtNxKYutNEPz7d1ib39Ebaq3xUdpNKVC X-Received: by 2002:aa7:d64e:: with SMTP id v14mr1256007edr.66.1603925105606; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 15:45:05 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1603925105; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=DidEWPE9e1uQDYNtSHr3rk0nqX4AHcYu8VW8a0aEMxoc4GuOOfSCdznNuZMt3R5rcG dAnrS6PrwDmJPAeeKu8GaAap8QNgrlTeAii26DiA96imUGYzApgDsDGE4+40WPLBgc1i 2G6oSrEItJwHrbnaxQpLoo5msoAs64V++HuwTWAiK6NiHNSlM7JRfus5D8Q4nCL6QbeI 3MiamtnqFwMsT1OEPrMXN0bHyPd+5DTlInjTbCxBplEtyMFXo1E28Np+lf4UiRcLiWVP MxbxO7WpLdjFIC/xUaWtblc5PuYFryigTylvz/rjpzs3sjpz3QjhQLq2JgAIJ1H4hdIq Z8fg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:content-transfer-encoding:content-language :in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date:message-id:from:references :cc:to:subject:dkim-signature; bh=oaa8geg/T7Mkg1IhrPZ9ojItG/nEdjLtTyyx3XiRm1g=; b=iVBXOhaIhrwchrNM+WSuYDOfQPwSxdQpfFO4woxHR8/jQjZSl++p+vpT7R5Yi9XcId Z6WiW09HQHjnp51LODuSXLctb16pw/brrO0meeHfdlGUBD8J+Q/DvInQUuwdp8+yok65 K3I5I2aOFiEyn3KgYGxFDC2/GiWFobILepGw/aZd9uzzNLXh3QHKYKvQEnEZxyxV5M8Q yecnyjprmTR/RquS/91gdisD5TpORCGacSeNzHFiM4qLgL+P/RWgOjaZmygtaTI2YwyW Q1Ti87+jrelAM2rjKBtjZuLKsYhHMwOchLNtv1LZSrAe1PFbjpO1jfnOBDpN5TzEX5t1 2ckg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=iXpwEKz4; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id de24si630803edb.386.2020.10.28.15.44.35; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 15:45:05 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=iXpwEKz4; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2389507AbgJ1Wn4 (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 28 Oct 2020 18:43:56 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:58062 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2389503AbgJ1Wnz (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Oct 2020 18:43:55 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-x644.google.com (mail-pl1-x644.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::644]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9123BC0613CF; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 15:43:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x644.google.com with SMTP id f21so352264plr.5; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 15:43:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=oaa8geg/T7Mkg1IhrPZ9ojItG/nEdjLtTyyx3XiRm1g=; b=iXpwEKz4ahjXONPencKe1/fGUjTiRHXYhjFkWnYTO/LyraTFF82uNHLqAEZBITozVX wSE2C0eWJjmfzlCrdqJU4gToJwL9zYQt3CoL5jYkVnAbTUcCEMOrbjnGSTyB0OajDSzY 0MdPKWc0+3GKM2aM7xvoVCFTshTkbxcyOiP8jnajHiAYsqB1Dgs5o40jLXH2mqh23tog Td5089h6p1IAfsadUCDJagHAuNMaYoanED4Z3Osg9fSPJWv2OQ3brSAFsiB2NIEksgYg xFFTLmyiBSaj1Y7W2n9ATS6iBvIKhf2CEmunsNqt0Z3M2BypMEiV4xsquHzRCI8La8RT Wytw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=oaa8geg/T7Mkg1IhrPZ9ojItG/nEdjLtTyyx3XiRm1g=; b=HVB1yCR7d7lSDWk+w7xmwPknwJbFn7Py2PEGC6XUhOvyJaa1iF1uJPrM7qBNHIOHFS s1AGwiwW9mlpfwTAlBDAQ1cTQRkXIooYTWULyCdhXrFEuT6KjtxUm8b2YOo2ZjKiECiq O+cf27952tvj5zGWh1c6Iidf6WLY++1e/VMWqsHtSznPLuCyHn3qMGrXSh8Bx6cW0pvh yQdNfxdzwQpYcXB7q0DkFntHMfqPh8YDl4hdwQCVuciQu+DDBZ2GmvrDcJG2TyajsX8v LsbvnvNZVXeNgX0ACT05PtxAKMgEF9OSQdBDmEobBsTwNsznudSHVTF+YAfySnw2QD0a sRmw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5325rCAKQwA1Vd+DRXvIN1TadLN2d9CHyabqhpIyJLYEnJD49fNv kyZ1zKDZ4FAkiAiQYqMqkrVZj/BQj27mdOYH X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:6505:b029:d5:f870:4d20 with SMTP id b5-20020a1709026505b02900d5f8704d20mr6721566plk.34.1603874728042; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 01:45:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.86.81] ([106.51.242.167]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ck21sm4196820pjb.56.2020.10.28.01.45.24 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 28 Oct 2020 01:45:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] kunit: Support for Parameterized Testing To: Marco Elver Cc: Brendan Higgins , skhan@linuxfoundation.org, Iurii Zaikin , Theodore Ts'o , Andreas Dilger , "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" , KUnit Development , LKML , linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org References: <20201027174630.85213-1-98.arpi@gmail.com> From: Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5aa41bb7-79fa-bcd6-ef51-e27dabceb5cf@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 14:15:22 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org On 28/10/20 12:51 am, Marco Elver wrote: > On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 at 18:47, Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Implementation of support for parameterized testing in KUnit. >> This approach requires the creation of a test case using the >> KUNIT_CASE_PARAM macro that accepts a generator function as input. >> This generator function should return the next parameter given the >> previous parameter in parameterized tests. It also provides >> a macro to generate common-case generators. >> >> Signed-off-by: Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@gmail.com> >> Co-developed-by: Marco Elver >> Signed-off-by: Marco Elver >> --- >> Changes v3->v4: >> - Rename kunit variables >> - Rename generator function helper macro >> - Add documentation for generator approach >> - Display test case name in case of failure along with param index >> Changes v2->v3: >> - Modifictaion of generator macro and method >> Changes v1->v2: >> - Use of a generator method to access test case parameters >> >> include/kunit/test.h | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> lib/kunit/test.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++++++- >> 2 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h >> index 9197da792336..ec2307ee9bb0 100644 >> --- a/include/kunit/test.h >> +++ b/include/kunit/test.h >> @@ -107,6 +107,13 @@ struct kunit; >> * >> * @run_case: the function representing the actual test case. >> * @name: the name of the test case. >> + * @generate_params: the generator function for parameterized tests. >> + * >> + * The generator function is used to lazily generate a series of >> + * arbitrarily typed values that fit into a void*. The argument @prev >> + * is the previously returned value, which should be used to derive the >> + * next value; @prev is set to NULL on the initial generator call. >> + * When no more values are available, the generator must return NULL. >> * > > Hmm, should this really be the first paragraph? I think it should be > the paragraph before "Example:" maybe. But then that paragraph should > refer to generate_params e.g. "The generator function @generate_params > is used to ........". > > The other option you have is to move this paragraph to the kernel-doc > comment for KUNIT_CASE_PARAM, which seems to be missing a kernel-doc > comment. > >> * A test case is a function with the signature, >> * ``void (*)(struct kunit *)`` >> @@ -141,6 +148,7 @@ struct kunit; >> struct kunit_case { >> void (*run_case)(struct kunit *test); >> const char *name; >> + void* (*generate_params)(void *prev); >> >> /* private: internal use only. */ >> bool success; >> @@ -162,6 +170,9 @@ static inline char *kunit_status_to_string(bool status) >> * &struct kunit_case for an example on how to use it. >> */ >> #define KUNIT_CASE(test_name) { .run_case = test_name, .name = #test_name } > > I.e. create a new kernel-doc comment for KUNIT_CASE_PARAM here, and > simply move the paragraph describing the generator protocol into that > comment. > I will make this change. >> +#define KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(test_name, gen_params) \ >> + { .run_case = test_name, .name = #test_name, \ >> + .generate_params = gen_params } >> >> /** >> * struct kunit_suite - describes a related collection of &struct kunit_case >> @@ -208,6 +219,15 @@ struct kunit { >> const char *name; /* Read only after initialization! */ >> char *log; /* Points at case log after initialization */ >> struct kunit_try_catch try_catch; >> + /* param_value points to test case parameters in parameterized tests */ > > Hmm, not quite: param_value is the current parameter value for a test > case. Most likely it's a pointer, but it doesn't need to be. > >> + void *param_value; >> + /* >> + * param_index stores the index of the parameter in >> + * parameterized tests. param_index + 1 is printed >> + * to indicate the parameter that causes the test >> + * to fail in case of test failure. >> + */ > > I think this comment needs to be reformatted, because you can use at > the very least use 80 cols per line. (If you use vim, visual select > and do 'gq'.) > >> + int param_index; >> /* >> * success starts as true, and may only be set to false during a >> * test case; thus, it is safe to update this across multiple >> @@ -1742,4 +1762,18 @@ do { \ >> fmt, \ >> ##__VA_ARGS__) >> >> +/** >> + * KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM() - Helper method for test parameter generators >> + * required in parameterized tests. >> + * @name: prefix of the name for the test parameter generator function. >> + * It will be suffixed by "_gen_params". >> + * @array: a user-supplied pointer to an array of test parameters. >> + */ >> +#define KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM(name, array) \ >> + static void *name##_gen_params(void *prev) \ >> + { \ >> + typeof((array)[0]) * __next = prev ? ((typeof(__next)) prev) + 1 : (array); \ >> + return __next - (array) < ARRAY_SIZE((array)) ? __next : NULL; \ >> + } >> + >> #endif /* _KUNIT_TEST_H */ >> diff --git a/lib/kunit/test.c b/lib/kunit/test.c >> index 750704abe89a..8ad908b61494 100644 >> --- a/lib/kunit/test.c >> +++ b/lib/kunit/test.c >> @@ -127,6 +127,12 @@ unsigned int kunit_test_case_num(struct kunit_suite *suite, >> } >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kunit_test_case_num); >> >> +static void kunit_print_failed_param(struct kunit *test) >> +{ >> + kunit_err(test, "\n\tTest failed at:\n\ttest case: %s\n\tparameter: %d\n", >> + test->name, test->param_index + 1); >> +} > > Hmm, perhaps I wasn't clear, but I think I also misunderstood how the > test case successes are presented: they are not, and it's all bunched > into a single test case. > > Firstly, kunit_err() already prints the test name, so if we want > something like " # : the_test_case_name: failed at parameter #X", > simply having > > kunit_err(test, "failed at parameter #%d\n", test->param_index + 1) > > would be what you want. > > But I think I missed that parameters do not actually produce a set of > test cases (sorry for noticing late). I think in their current form, > the parameterized tests would not be useful for my tests, because each > of my tests have test cases that have specific init and exit > functions. For each parameter, these would also need to run. > > Ideally, each parameter produces its own independent test case > "test_case#param_index". That way, CI systems will also be able to > logically separate different test case params, simply because each > param produced its own distinct test case. > > So, for example, we would get a series of test cases from something > like KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(test_case, foo_gen_params), and in the output > we'd see: > > ok X - test_case#1 > ok X - test_case#2 > ok X - test_case#3 > ok X - test_case#4 > .... > > Would that make more sense? > > That way we'd ensure that test-case specific initialization and > cleanup done in init and exit functions is properly taken care of, and > you wouldn't need kunit_print_failed_param(). > > AFAIK, for what I propose you'd have to modify kunit_print_ok_not_ok() > (show param_index if parameterized test) and probably > kunit_run_case_catch_errors() (generate params and set > test->param_value and param_index). > > Was there a reason why each param cannot be a distinct test case? If > not, I think this would be more useful. > Oh, I hadn't considered this earlier. I will try it out for the next version. >> static void kunit_print_string_stream(struct kunit *test, >> struct string_stream *stream) >> { >> @@ -168,6 +174,8 @@ static void kunit_fail(struct kunit *test, struct kunit_assert *assert) >> assert->format(assert, stream); >> >> kunit_print_string_stream(test, stream); >> + if (test->param_value) >> + kunit_print_failed_param(test); >> >> WARN_ON(string_stream_destroy(stream)); >> } >> @@ -239,7 +247,18 @@ static void kunit_run_case_internal(struct kunit *test, >> } >> } >> >> - test_case->run_case(test); >> + if (!test_case->generate_params) { >> + test_case->run_case(test); >> + } else { >> + test->param_value = test_case->generate_params(NULL); >> + test->param_index = 0; >> + >> + while (test->param_value) { >> + test_case->run_case(test); >> + test->param_value = test_case->generate_params(test->param_value); >> + test->param_index++; >> + } >> + } > > Thanks, > -- Marco > I'll make all the suggested changes. Thanks!