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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] kunit: Support for Parameterized Testing
To:     Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Cc:     Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>,
        skhan@linuxfoundation.org, Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@google.com>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
        KUnit Development <kunit-dev@googlegroups.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
References: <20201106182657.30492-1-98.arpi@gmail.com>
 <CANpmjNPsACW1mZmkWiCSeXfvAGaxAS5sHtYMu0-DfE7ec2pFMA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <11549107-7247-03a7-2469-f5aa793a0d19@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 7 Nov 2020 00:30:36 +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: <CANpmjNPsACW1mZmkWiCSeXfvAGaxAS5sHtYMu0-DfE7ec2pFMA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 07/11/20 12:15 am, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 19:28, 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 <elver@google.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
> [...]
>> -       kunit_suite_for_each_test_case(suite, test_case)
>> -               kunit_run_case_catch_errors(suite, test_case);
>> +       kunit_suite_for_each_test_case(suite, test_case) {
>> +               struct kunit test = { .param_value = NULL, .param_index = 0 };
>> +               bool test_success = true;
>> +
>> +               if (test_case->generate_params)
>> +                       test.param_value = test_case->generate_params(NULL);
>> +
>> +               do {
>> +                       kunit_run_case_catch_errors(suite, test_case, &test);
>> +                       test_success &= test_case->success;
>> +
>> +                       if (test_case->generate_params) {
>> +                               kunit_log(KERN_INFO, &test,
>> +                                       KUNIT_SUBTEST_INDENT
>> +                                       "# %s: param-%d %s",
>> +                                       test_case->name, test.param_index,
>> +                                       kunit_status_to_string(test.success));
> 
> Sorry, I still found something. The patch I sent had this aligned with
> the '(', whereas when I apply this patch it no longer is aligned. Why?
> 
> I see the rest of the file also aligns arguments with opening '(', so
> I think your change is inconsistent.
> 

Ah those lines had spaces instead of tab and I think I messed up the alignment
fixing that. I will send another version fixing this.
Thanks!

> Thanks,
> -- Marco
>