| Message ID | 20230707210947.1208717-9-rmoar@google.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Delegated to: | Brendan Higgins |
| Headers | show |
| Series | kunit: Add test attributes API | expand |
On Fri, Jul 7, 2023 at 2:10 PM Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com> wrote: > > Add four tests to executor_test.c to test behavior of filtering attributes. > > - parse_filter_attr_test - to test the parsing of inputted filters > > - filter_attr_test - to test the filtering procedure on attributes > > - filter_attr_empty_test - to test the behavior when all tests are filtered > out > > - filter_attr_skip_test - to test the configurable filter_skip option > > Signed-off-by: Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com> I love that I'm able to read this patch first and get a feel for what exactly the patch series is doing overall. Some nits and suggestions below. > --- > > Changes since v1: > - This is a new patch > > lib/kunit/executor_test.c | 107 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 107 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/lib/kunit/executor_test.c b/lib/kunit/executor_test.c > index d7ab069324b5..145a78ade33d 100644 > --- a/lib/kunit/executor_test.c > +++ b/lib/kunit/executor_test.c > @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ > */ > > #include <kunit/test.h> > +#include <kunit/attributes.h> > > static void kfree_at_end(struct kunit *test, const void *to_free); > static struct kunit_suite *alloc_fake_suite(struct kunit *test, > @@ -22,6 +23,14 @@ static struct kunit_case dummy_test_cases[] = { > {}, > }; > > +static struct kunit_case dummy_attr_test_cases[] = { > + /* .run_case is not important, just needs to be non-NULL */ > + { .name = "test1", .run_case = dummy_test, .module_name = "dummy", > + .attr.speed = KUNIT_SPEED_SLOW }, > + { .name = "test2", .run_case = dummy_test, .module_name = "dummy" }, > + {}, > +}; 1) can we move this array to be just above parse_filter_attr_test so it's next to where it's used? 2) How about renaming "test1" to "slow" to make the assertions in the test case a bit easier to follow? Right now readers need to remember which test case was supposed to be filtered out. > + > static void parse_filter_test(struct kunit *test) > { > struct kunit_glob_filter filter = {NULL, NULL}; > @@ -108,11 +117,109 @@ static void filter_suites_to_empty_test(struct kunit *test) > "should be empty to indicate no match"); > } > > +static void parse_filter_attr_test(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + int j, filter_count; > + struct kunit_attr_filter *parsed_filters; > + char *filters = "speed>slow, module!=example"; > + int err = 0; > + > + filter_count = kunit_get_filter_count(filters); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, filter_count, 2); > + > + parsed_filters = kcalloc(filter_count + 1, sizeof(*parsed_filters), GFP_KERNEL); nit: kunit_kcalloc() instead? > + for (j = 0; j < filter_count; j++) > + parsed_filters[j] = kunit_next_attr_filter(&filters, &err); then here we probably want to check err, i.e. KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ_MSG(test, err, 0, "failed to parse filter '%s'", filters[i]); > + > + KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, kunit_attr_filter_name(parsed_filters[0]), "speed"); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, parsed_filters[0].input, ">slow"); > + > + KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, kunit_attr_filter_name(parsed_filters[1]), "module"); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, parsed_filters[1].input, "!=example"); > + > + kfree(parsed_filters); > +} > + > +static void filter_attr_test(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + struct kunit_suite *subsuite[3] = {NULL, NULL}; > + struct suite_set suite_set = {.start = subsuite, .end = &subsuite[2]}; > + struct suite_set got; > + int err = 0; > + > + subsuite[0] = alloc_fake_suite(test, "suite1", dummy_attr_test_cases); > + subsuite[1] = alloc_fake_suite(test, "suite2", dummy_attr_test_cases); > + subsuite[1]->attr.speed = KUNIT_SPEED_SLOW; // Set suite attribute Similarly, perhaps we can rename suite2 to "slow_suite"? That would cause this line to go over 80 characters wide, but since that's no longer a hard limit, I think this would be a decent place to go past it. > + > + /* Want: suite1(test1, test2), suite2(test1, test2), NULL -> suite1(test2), NULL */ > + got = kunit_filter_suites(&suite_set, NULL, "speed>slow", NULL, &err); > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start); > + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, err, 0); > + kfree_at_end(test, got.start); > + > + /* Validate we just have suite1 */ > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start[0]); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, (const char *)got.start[0]->name, "suite1"); > + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, got.end - got.start, 1); > + > + /* Now validate we just have test2 */ > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start[0]->test_cases); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, (const char *)got.start[0]->test_cases[0].name, "test2"); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, got.start[0]->test_cases[1].name); > +} > + > +static void filter_attr_empty_test(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + struct kunit_suite *subsuite[3] = {NULL, NULL}; > + struct suite_set suite_set = {.start = subsuite, .end = &subsuite[2]}; > + struct suite_set got; > + int err = 0; > + > + subsuite[0] = alloc_fake_suite(test, "suite1", dummy_attr_test_cases); > + subsuite[1] = alloc_fake_suite(test, "suite2", dummy_attr_test_cases); > + > + got = kunit_filter_suites(&suite_set, NULL, "module!=dummy", NULL, &err); > + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, err, 0); > + kfree_at_end(test, got.start); /* just in case */ > + > + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ_MSG(test, got.start, got.end, > + "should be empty to indicate no match"); > +} > + > +static void filter_attr_skip_test(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + struct kunit_suite *subsuite[2] = {NULL}; > + struct suite_set suite_set = {.start = subsuite, .end = &subsuite[1]}; > + struct suite_set got; > + int err = 0; > + > + subsuite[0] = alloc_fake_suite(test, "suite1", dummy_attr_test_cases); > + > + /* Want: suite1(test1, test2), NULL -> suite1(test1 with SKIP, test2), NULL */ > + got = kunit_filter_suites(&suite_set, NULL, "speed>slow", "skip", &err); > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start); > + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, err, 0); > + kfree_at_end(test, got.start); > + > + /* Validate we have both test1 and test2 */ > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start[0]->test_cases); Should we assert that we have 2 test cases before we dereference the second one? The other code in this file (that I wrote) is being a bit sloppy and deref'ing test_cases[0] without checking. It's doing that since I was relying on the fact that the filtering code drops suites with no test cases, so we don't necessarily need to check len(test_cases) >= 1. (In terms of best practices, we should be defensive and checking that, though). But in this case, we have no such guarantee about the second element. > + KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, (const char *)got.start[0]->test_cases[0].name, "test1"); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, (const char *)got.start[0]->test_cases[1].name, "test2"); Trying to remember, I think the cast to `const char *` is no longer necessary after one of David's changes... I think we might just never have gotten around to cleaning that up due to the ordering in which the patches went in... > + > + /* Now ensure test1 is skipped and test2 is not */ > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, got.start[0]->test_cases[0].status, KUNIT_SKIPPED); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, got.start[0]->test_cases[1].status); Should we check that it's equal to KUNIT_SUCCESS instead? > +} > + > static struct kunit_case executor_test_cases[] = { > KUNIT_CASE(parse_filter_test), > KUNIT_CASE(filter_suites_test), > KUNIT_CASE(filter_suites_test_glob_test), > KUNIT_CASE(filter_suites_to_empty_test), > + KUNIT_CASE(parse_filter_attr_test), > + KUNIT_CASE(filter_attr_test), > + KUNIT_CASE(filter_attr_empty_test), > + KUNIT_CASE(filter_attr_skip_test), > {} > }; > > -- > 2.41.0.255.g8b1d071c50-goog >
On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 2:07 PM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 7, 2023 at 2:10 PM Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com> wrote: > > > > Add four tests to executor_test.c to test behavior of filtering attributes. > > > > - parse_filter_attr_test - to test the parsing of inputted filters > > > > - filter_attr_test - to test the filtering procedure on attributes > > > > - filter_attr_empty_test - to test the behavior when all tests are filtered > > out > > > > - filter_attr_skip_test - to test the configurable filter_skip option > > > > Signed-off-by: Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com> > > I love that I'm able to read this patch first and get a feel for what > exactly the patch series is doing overall. Thanks! > > > Some nits and suggestions below. > > > --- > > > > Changes since v1: > > - This is a new patch > > > > lib/kunit/executor_test.c | 107 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 107 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/lib/kunit/executor_test.c b/lib/kunit/executor_test.c > > index d7ab069324b5..145a78ade33d 100644 > > --- a/lib/kunit/executor_test.c > > +++ b/lib/kunit/executor_test.c > > @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ > > */ > > > > #include <kunit/test.h> > > +#include <kunit/attributes.h> > > > > static void kfree_at_end(struct kunit *test, const void *to_free); > > static struct kunit_suite *alloc_fake_suite(struct kunit *test, > > @@ -22,6 +23,14 @@ static struct kunit_case dummy_test_cases[] = { > > {}, > > }; > > > > +static struct kunit_case dummy_attr_test_cases[] = { > > + /* .run_case is not important, just needs to be non-NULL */ > > + { .name = "test1", .run_case = dummy_test, .module_name = "dummy", > > + .attr.speed = KUNIT_SPEED_SLOW }, > > + { .name = "test2", .run_case = dummy_test, .module_name = "dummy" }, > > + {}, > > +}; > > 1) can we move this array to be just above parse_filter_attr_test so > it's next to where it's used? This seems like a great idea. I will move it down. > > > 2) How about renaming "test1" to "slow" to make the assertions in the > test case a bit easier to follow? > Right now readers need to remember which test case was supposed to be > filtered out. Yes this sounds good. I think including "slow" would be helpful although I might also consider the name "slow_test". > > > > + > > static void parse_filter_test(struct kunit *test) > > { > > struct kunit_glob_filter filter = {NULL, NULL}; > > @@ -108,11 +117,109 @@ static void filter_suites_to_empty_test(struct kunit *test) > > "should be empty to indicate no match"); > > } > > > > +static void parse_filter_attr_test(struct kunit *test) > > +{ > > + int j, filter_count; > > + struct kunit_attr_filter *parsed_filters; > > + char *filters = "speed>slow, module!=example"; > > + int err = 0; > > + > > + filter_count = kunit_get_filter_count(filters); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, filter_count, 2); > > + > > + parsed_filters = kcalloc(filter_count + 1, sizeof(*parsed_filters), GFP_KERNEL); > > nit: kunit_kcalloc() instead? Right, that makes sense. Thanks! > > > + for (j = 0; j < filter_count; j++) > > + parsed_filters[j] = kunit_next_attr_filter(&filters, &err); > > then here we probably want to check err, i.e. > KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ_MSG(test, err, 0, "failed to parse filter '%s'", filters[i]); > Sounds good. I will add this. > > > + > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, kunit_attr_filter_name(parsed_filters[0]), "speed"); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, parsed_filters[0].input, ">slow"); > > + > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, kunit_attr_filter_name(parsed_filters[1]), "module"); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, parsed_filters[1].input, "!=example"); > > + > > + kfree(parsed_filters); > > +} > > + > > +static void filter_attr_test(struct kunit *test) > > +{ > > + struct kunit_suite *subsuite[3] = {NULL, NULL}; > > + struct suite_set suite_set = {.start = subsuite, .end = &subsuite[2]}; > > + struct suite_set got; > > + int err = 0; > > + > > + subsuite[0] = alloc_fake_suite(test, "suite1", dummy_attr_test_cases); > > + subsuite[1] = alloc_fake_suite(test, "suite2", dummy_attr_test_cases); > > + subsuite[1]->attr.speed = KUNIT_SPEED_SLOW; // Set suite attribute > > Similarly, perhaps we can rename suite2 to "slow_suite"? > That would cause this line to go over 80 characters wide, but since > that's no longer a hard limit, I think this would be a decent place to > go past it. Like above, I like this idea. I'll change the name. Interesting idea about the 80 character limit also. > > > > + > > + /* Want: suite1(test1, test2), suite2(test1, test2), NULL -> suite1(test2), NULL */ > > + got = kunit_filter_suites(&suite_set, NULL, "speed>slow", NULL, &err); > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start); > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, err, 0); > > + kfree_at_end(test, got.start); > > + > > + /* Validate we just have suite1 */ > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start[0]); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, (const char *)got.start[0]->name, "suite1"); > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, got.end - got.start, 1); > > + > > + /* Now validate we just have test2 */ > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start[0]->test_cases); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, (const char *)got.start[0]->test_cases[0].name, "test2"); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, got.start[0]->test_cases[1].name); > > +} > > + > > +static void filter_attr_empty_test(struct kunit *test) > > +{ > > + struct kunit_suite *subsuite[3] = {NULL, NULL}; > > + struct suite_set suite_set = {.start = subsuite, .end = &subsuite[2]}; > > + struct suite_set got; > > + int err = 0; > > + > > + subsuite[0] = alloc_fake_suite(test, "suite1", dummy_attr_test_cases); > > + subsuite[1] = alloc_fake_suite(test, "suite2", dummy_attr_test_cases); > > + > > + got = kunit_filter_suites(&suite_set, NULL, "module!=dummy", NULL, &err); > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, err, 0); > > + kfree_at_end(test, got.start); /* just in case */ > > + > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ_MSG(test, got.start, got.end, > > + "should be empty to indicate no match"); > > +} > > + > > +static void filter_attr_skip_test(struct kunit *test) > > +{ > > + struct kunit_suite *subsuite[2] = {NULL}; > > + struct suite_set suite_set = {.start = subsuite, .end = &subsuite[1]}; > > + struct suite_set got; > > + int err = 0; > > + > > + subsuite[0] = alloc_fake_suite(test, "suite1", dummy_attr_test_cases); > > + > > + /* Want: suite1(test1, test2), NULL -> suite1(test1 with SKIP, test2), NULL */ > > + got = kunit_filter_suites(&suite_set, NULL, "speed>slow", "skip", &err); > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start); > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, err, 0); > > + kfree_at_end(test, got.start); > > + > > + /* Validate we have both test1 and test2 */ > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start[0]->test_cases); > > Should we assert that we have 2 test cases before we dereference the second one? > The other code in this file (that I wrote) is being a bit sloppy and > deref'ing test_cases[0] without checking. It's doing that since I was > relying on the fact that the filtering code drops suites with no test > cases, so we don't necessarily need to check len(test_cases) >= 1. > (In terms of best practices, we should be defensive and checking that, though). > > But in this case, we have no such guarantee about the second element. Good point. I'll add an assert statement here about the length of test_cases. > > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, (const char *)got.start[0]->test_cases[0].name, "test1"); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, (const char *)got.start[0]->test_cases[1].name, "test2"); > > Trying to remember, I think the cast to `const char *` is no longer > necessary after one of David's changes... > I think we might just never have gotten around to cleaning that up due > to the ordering in which the patches went in... Ahh got it. That is my bad. I'll double check if these are necessary. > > > > + > > + /* Now ensure test1 is skipped and test2 is not */ > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, got.start[0]->test_cases[0].status, KUNIT_SKIPPED); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, got.start[0]->test_cases[1].status); > > Should we check that it's equal to KUNIT_SUCCESS instead? > I wouldn't expect the status to be set in this case. But the status is returning as 0 so it would pass for both the assert statement above and if it's equal to KUNIT_SUCCESS. But since it is not supposed to be set to KUNIT_SUCCESS, I'm inclined to keep it this way. Thanks for all the comments Daniel! -Rae > > > > +} > > + > > static struct kunit_case executor_test_cases[] = { > > KUNIT_CASE(parse_filter_test), > > KUNIT_CASE(filter_suites_test), > > KUNIT_CASE(filter_suites_test_glob_test), > > KUNIT_CASE(filter_suites_to_empty_test), > > + KUNIT_CASE(parse_filter_attr_test), > > + KUNIT_CASE(filter_attr_test), > > + KUNIT_CASE(filter_attr_empty_test), > > + KUNIT_CASE(filter_attr_skip_test), > > {} > > }; > > > > -- > > 2.41.0.255.g8b1d071c50-goog > >
diff --git a/lib/kunit/executor_test.c b/lib/kunit/executor_test.c index d7ab069324b5..145a78ade33d 100644 --- a/lib/kunit/executor_test.c +++ b/lib/kunit/executor_test.c @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ */ #include <kunit/test.h> +#include <kunit/attributes.h> static void kfree_at_end(struct kunit *test, const void *to_free); static struct kunit_suite *alloc_fake_suite(struct kunit *test, @@ -22,6 +23,14 @@ static struct kunit_case dummy_test_cases[] = { {}, }; +static struct kunit_case dummy_attr_test_cases[] = { + /* .run_case is not important, just needs to be non-NULL */ + { .name = "test1", .run_case = dummy_test, .module_name = "dummy", + .attr.speed = KUNIT_SPEED_SLOW }, + { .name = "test2", .run_case = dummy_test, .module_name = "dummy" }, + {}, +}; + static void parse_filter_test(struct kunit *test) { struct kunit_glob_filter filter = {NULL, NULL}; @@ -108,11 +117,109 @@ static void filter_suites_to_empty_test(struct kunit *test) "should be empty to indicate no match"); } +static void parse_filter_attr_test(struct kunit *test) +{ + int j, filter_count; + struct kunit_attr_filter *parsed_filters; + char *filters = "speed>slow, module!=example"; + int err = 0; + + filter_count = kunit_get_filter_count(filters); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, filter_count, 2); + + parsed_filters = kcalloc(filter_count + 1, sizeof(*parsed_filters), GFP_KERNEL); + for (j = 0; j < filter_count; j++) + parsed_filters[j] = kunit_next_attr_filter(&filters, &err); + + KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, kunit_attr_filter_name(parsed_filters[0]), "speed"); + KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, parsed_filters[0].input, ">slow"); + + KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, kunit_attr_filter_name(parsed_filters[1]), "module"); + KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, parsed_filters[1].input, "!=example"); + + kfree(parsed_filters); +} + +static void filter_attr_test(struct kunit *test) +{ + struct kunit_suite *subsuite[3] = {NULL, NULL}; + struct suite_set suite_set = {.start = subsuite, .end = &subsuite[2]}; + struct suite_set got; + int err = 0; + + subsuite[0] = alloc_fake_suite(test, "suite1", dummy_attr_test_cases); + subsuite[1] = alloc_fake_suite(test, "suite2", dummy_attr_test_cases); + subsuite[1]->attr.speed = KUNIT_SPEED_SLOW; // Set suite attribute + + /* Want: suite1(test1, test2), suite2(test1, test2), NULL -> suite1(test2), NULL */ + got = kunit_filter_suites(&suite_set, NULL, "speed>slow", NULL, &err); + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start); + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, err, 0); + kfree_at_end(test, got.start); + + /* Validate we just have suite1 */ + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start[0]); + KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, (const char *)got.start[0]->name, "suite1"); + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, got.end - got.start, 1); + + /* Now validate we just have test2 */ + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start[0]->test_cases); + KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, (const char *)got.start[0]->test_cases[0].name, "test2"); + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, got.start[0]->test_cases[1].name); +} + +static void filter_attr_empty_test(struct kunit *test) +{ + struct kunit_suite *subsuite[3] = {NULL, NULL}; + struct suite_set suite_set = {.start = subsuite, .end = &subsuite[2]}; + struct suite_set got; + int err = 0; + + subsuite[0] = alloc_fake_suite(test, "suite1", dummy_attr_test_cases); + subsuite[1] = alloc_fake_suite(test, "suite2", dummy_attr_test_cases); + + got = kunit_filter_suites(&suite_set, NULL, "module!=dummy", NULL, &err); + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, err, 0); + kfree_at_end(test, got.start); /* just in case */ + + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ_MSG(test, got.start, got.end, + "should be empty to indicate no match"); +} + +static void filter_attr_skip_test(struct kunit *test) +{ + struct kunit_suite *subsuite[2] = {NULL}; + struct suite_set suite_set = {.start = subsuite, .end = &subsuite[1]}; + struct suite_set got; + int err = 0; + + subsuite[0] = alloc_fake_suite(test, "suite1", dummy_attr_test_cases); + + /* Want: suite1(test1, test2), NULL -> suite1(test1 with SKIP, test2), NULL */ + got = kunit_filter_suites(&suite_set, NULL, "speed>slow", "skip", &err); + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start); + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, err, 0); + kfree_at_end(test, got.start); + + /* Validate we have both test1 and test2 */ + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, got.start[0]->test_cases); + KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, (const char *)got.start[0]->test_cases[0].name, "test1"); + KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, (const char *)got.start[0]->test_cases[1].name, "test2"); + + /* Now ensure test1 is skipped and test2 is not */ + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, got.start[0]->test_cases[0].status, KUNIT_SKIPPED); + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, got.start[0]->test_cases[1].status); +} + static struct kunit_case executor_test_cases[] = { KUNIT_CASE(parse_filter_test), KUNIT_CASE(filter_suites_test), KUNIT_CASE(filter_suites_test_glob_test), KUNIT_CASE(filter_suites_to_empty_test), + KUNIT_CASE(parse_filter_attr_test), + KUNIT_CASE(filter_attr_test), + KUNIT_CASE(filter_attr_empty_test), + KUNIT_CASE(filter_attr_skip_test), {} };
Add four tests to executor_test.c to test behavior of filtering attributes. - parse_filter_attr_test - to test the parsing of inputted filters - filter_attr_test - to test the filtering procedure on attributes - filter_attr_empty_test - to test the behavior when all tests are filtered out - filter_attr_skip_test - to test the configurable filter_skip option Signed-off-by: Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com> --- Changes since v1: - This is a new patch lib/kunit/executor_test.c | 107 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 107 insertions(+)