Re: [PATCH v14 01/18] kunit: test: add KUnit test runner core

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:04 PM shuah <shuah(a)kernel.org&gt; wrote: > > On 8/23/19 12:56 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 11:32 AM shuah <shuah(a)kernel.org&gt; wrote: >>> >>> On 8/23/19 11:54 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote: >>>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 10:34 AM shuah <shuah(a)kernel.org&gt; wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 8/23/19 11:27 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 10:05 AM shuah <shuah(a)kernel.org&gt; wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 8/23/19 10:48 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote: >>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 8:33 AM shuah <shuah(a)kernel.org&gt; wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Brendan, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 8/20/19 5:20 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Add core facilities for defining unit tests; this provides a common way >>>>>>>>>> to define test cases, functions that execute code which is under test >>>>>>>>>> and determine whether the code under test behaves as expected; this also >>>>>>>>>> provides a way to group together related test cases in test suites (here >>>>>>>>>> we call them test_modules). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Just define test cases and how to execute them for now; setting >>>>>>>>>> expectations on code will be defined later. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins(a)google.com&gt; >>>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh(a)linuxfoundation.org&gt; >>>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Logan Gunthorpe <logang(a)deltatee.com&gt; >>>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof(a)kernel.org&gt; >>>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd(a)kernel.org&gt; >>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>> include/kunit/test.h | 179 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>>>>>> kunit/Kconfig | 17 ++++ >>>>>>>>>> kunit/Makefile | 1 + >>>>>>>>>> kunit/test.c | 191 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>>>>>> 4 files changed, 388 insertions(+) >>>>>>>>>> create mode 100644 include/kunit/test.h >>>>>>>>>> create mode 100644 kunit/Kconfig >>>>>>>>>> create mode 100644 kunit/Makefile >>>>>>>>>> create mode 100644 kunit/test.c >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h >>>>>>>>>> new file mode 100644 >>>>>>>>>> index 0000000000000..e0b34acb9ee4e >>>>>>>>>> --- /dev/null >>>>>>>>>> +++ b/include/kunit/test.h >>>>>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,179 @@ >>>>>>>>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */ >>>>>>>>>> +/* >>>>>>>>>> + * Base unit test (KUnit) API. >>>>>>>>>> + * >>>>>>>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2019, Google LLC. >>>>>>>>>> + * Author: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins(a)google.com&gt; >>>>>>>>>> + */ >>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>> +#ifndef _KUNIT_TEST_H >>>>>>>>>> +#define _KUNIT_TEST_H >>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>> +#include <linux/types.h> >>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>> +struct kunit; >>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>> +/** >>>>>>>>>> + * struct kunit_case - represents an individual test case. >>>>>>>>>> + * @run_case: the function representing the actual test case. >>>>>>>>>> + * @name: the name of the test case. >>>>>>>>>> + * >>>>>>>>>> + * A test case is a function with the signature, ``void (*)(struct kunit *)`` >>>>>>>>>> + * that makes expectations (see KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE()) about code under test. Each >>>>>>>>>> + * test case is associated with a &struct kunit_suite and will be run after the >>>>>>>>>> + * suite's init function and followed by the suite's exit function. >>>>>>>>>> + * >>>>>>>>>> + * A test case should be static and should only be created with the KUNIT_CASE() >>>>>>>>>> + * macro; additionally, every array of test cases should be terminated with an >>>>>>>>>> + * empty test case. >>>>>>>>>> + * >>>>>>>>>> + * Example: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Can you fix these line continuations. It makes it very hard to read. >>>>>>>>> Sorry for this late comment. These comments lines are longer than 80 >>>>>>>>> and wrap. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> None of the lines in this commit are over 80 characters in column >>>>>>>> width. Some are exactly 80 characters (like above). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My guess is that you are seeing the diff added text (+ ), which when >>>>>>>> you add that to a line which is exactly 80 char in length ends up >>>>>>>> being over 80 char in email. If you apply the patch you will see that >>>>>>>> they are only 80 chars. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There are several comment lines in the file that are way too long. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Note that checkpatch also does not complain about any over 80 char >>>>>>>> lines in this file. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sorry if I am misunderstanding what you are trying to tell me. Please >>>>>>>> confirm either way. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WARNING: Avoid unnecessary line continuations >>>>>>> #258: FILE: include/kunit/test.h:137: >>>>>>> + */ \ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> total: 0 errors, 2 warnings, 388 lines checked >>>>>> >>>>>> Ah, okay so you don't like the warning about the line continuation. >>>>>> That's not because it is over 80 char, but because there is a line >>>>>> continuation after a comment. I don't really see a way to get rid of >>>>>> it without removing the comment from inside the macro. >>>>>> >>>>>> I put this TODO there in the first place a Luis' request, and I put it >>>>>> in the body of the macro because this macro already had a kernel-doc >>>>>> comment and I didn't think that an implementation detail TODO belonged >>>>>> in the user documentation. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Go ahead fix these. It appears there are few lines that either longer >>>>>>> than 80. In general, I keep them around 75, so it is easier read. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry, the above is the only checkpatch warning other than the >>>>>> reminder to update the MAINTAINERS file. >>>>>> >>>>>> Are you saying you want me to go through and make all the lines fit in >>>>>> 75 char column width? I hope not because that is going to be a pretty >>>>>> substantial change to make. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There are two things with these comment lines. One is checkpatch >>>>> complaining and the other is general readability. >>>> >>>> So for the checkpatch warning, do you want me to move the comment out >>>> of the macro body into the kernel-doc comment? I don't really think it >>>> is the right place for a comment of this nature, but I think it is >>>> probably better than dropping it entirely (I don't see how else to do >>>> it without just removing the comment entirely). >>>> >>> >>> Don't drop the comments. It makes perfect sense to turn this into a >>> kernel-doc comment. >> >> I am fine with that. I will do that in a subsequent revision once we >> figure out the column limit issue. >> >>> We are going back forth on this a lot. I see several lines 81+ in >>> this file. I am at 5.3-rc5 and my commit hooks aren't happy. I am >>> fine with it if you want to convert these to kernel-doc comments. >>> I think it makes perfect sense. >> >> Okay, so this is interesting. When I look at the applied patches in my >> local repo, I don't see any 81+ lines. So it seems that something >> interesting is going on here. >> >> To be clear (sorry for the stupid question) you are seeing the issue >> after you applied the patch, and not in the patch file itself? >> > > I am using my normal workflow. My pre-commit check is catching this. > Just this patch. Okay, *that* is super strange! So I have lines in this patch (01/18) that are exactly 80 char wide and I was thinking that it might be an off by one issue on either my workflow or your workflow, but I have lines in other patches that are exactly 80 char wide and our setups agree that they are fine, so I really am not sure what's going on here. It sounds like you are only seeing the issue in only a couple places, do you mind calling out the specific lines that are problematic?

> All others are good other than the 9/18 BUG() issue. >> Since we are still at OSS, would you mind if we meet up this afternoon >> so I can see this issue you are seeing? I imagine we should get this >> figured out pretty quickly. >> > > Yeah. Would have been nice. I am not at oss today. Dang.