8:23 p.m.
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 3:03 PM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof(a)kernel.org> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 01:02:55AM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 5:01 PM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof(a)kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 01:26:08AM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > > create mode 100644
tools/testing/kunit/test_data/test_is_test_passed-all_passed.log
> > > create mode 100644
tools/testing/kunit/test_data/test_is_test_passed-crash.log
> > > create mode 100644
tools/testing/kunit/test_data/test_is_test_passed-failure.log
> > > create mode 100644
tools/testing/kunit/test_data/test_is_test_passed-no_tests_run.log
> > > create mode 100644
tools/testing/kunit/test_data/test_output_isolated_correctly.log
> > > create mode 100644
tools/testing/kunit/test_data/test_read_from_file.kconfig
> >
> > Why are these being added upstream? The commit log does not explain
> > this.
>
> Oh sorry, those are for testing purposes. I thought that was clear
> from being in the test_data directory. I will reference it in the
> commit log in the next revision.
Still, I don't get it. They seem to be results from a prior run. Why do
we need them for testing purposes?
Those logs are the raw output from UML with KUnit installed. They are
for testing kunit_tool, the Python scripts added in this commit. One
of the things that kunit_tool does is parses the results output by
UML, extracts the KUnit data, and presents it in a user friendly
manner.
I added these logs so I could test that kunit_tool parses certain
kinds of output correctly. For example, I want to know that it parses
a test failure correctly and includes the appropriate context. So I
have a log from a unit test that failed, and I have a test (a Python
test that is also in this commit) that tests whether kunit_tool can
parse the log correctly.
Does that make sense?