| Message ID | 20220108012304.1049587-2-dlatypov@google.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Delegated to: | Brendan Higgins |
| Headers | show |
| Series | kunit: refactor assertions to use less stack | expand |
On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 8:23 PM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> wrote: > > Currently, these macros are only really documented near the bottom of > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/dev-tools/kunit/api/test.html#c.KUNIT_FAIL. > > E.g. it's likely someone might just not realize that > KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ() exists and instead use KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(strcmp()) > or similar. > > This can also serve as a basic smoketest that the KUnit assert machinery > still works for all the macros. > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> I still don't like how much this bloats the example test; aside from that, this looks good. Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 2:14 PM Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 8:23 PM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> wrote: > > > > Currently, these macros are only really documented near the bottom of > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/dev-tools/kunit/api/test.html#c.KUNIT_FAIL. > > > > E.g. it's likely someone might just not realize that > > KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ() exists and instead use KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(strcmp()) > > or similar. > > > > This can also serve as a basic smoketest that the KUnit assert machinery > > still works for all the macros. > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> > > I still don't like how much this bloats the example test; aside from > that, this looks good. Agreed, it does add bloat. I just wanted something *somewhere* I could use to smoketest the later changes. I just remembered how people weren't very aware of the _MSG variants and thought this could help. If others have a preference, I'll happily move out and into kunit-test.c. I'm fine either way as I initially was going to put it there to begin with. > > Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 9:23 AM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> wrote: > > Currently, these macros are only really documented near the bottom of > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/dev-tools/kunit/api/test.html#c.KUNIT_FAIL. > > E.g. it's likely someone might just not realize that > KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ() exists and instead use KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(strcmp()) > or similar. > > This can also serve as a basic smoketest that the KUnit assert machinery > still works for all the macros. > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> > --- I think this is a great idea. I will note that this definitely isn't a full test _of_ the assertion macros (in that it only exercises the success case), so keeping it as an example is probably best. A few possible ideas below, but I'm happy enough with this as-is regardless. Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com> > lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c b/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c > index 51099b0ca29c..182a64c12541 100644 > --- a/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c > +++ b/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c > @@ -69,6 +69,51 @@ static void example_mark_skipped_test(struct kunit *test) > /* This line should run */ > kunit_info(test, "You should see this line."); > } > + > +/* > + * This test shows off all the KUNIT_EXPECT macros. > + */ > +static void example_all_expect_macros_test(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, true); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, false); _Maybe_ it's worth having a comment for each of these groups ('boolean assertions', 'integer assertions', 'pointer assertions', etc)? > + > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 1, 1); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_GE(test, 1, 1); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_LE(test, 1, 1); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_NE(test, 1, 0); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_GT(test, 1, 0); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_LT(test, 0, 1); > + > + KUNIT_EXPECT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, test); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, NULL, NULL); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_NE(test, test, NULL); > + > + KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, "hi", "hi"); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_STRNEQ(test, "hi", "bye"); > + > + /* > + * There are also _MSG variants of all of the above that let you include > + * additional text on failure. > + */ There are also the ASSERT vs EXPECT variations. While it may be excessive to also include all of these, particularly in an example, it might be worth mentioning them in a comment somewhere? Alternatively, if this is bloating the example too much, we could have only one example each of the ASSERT and _MSG variants. > + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE_MSG(test, true, "msg"); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, false, "msg"); Part of me feels that a better message than "msg" would be nice to have here, but I can't think of a good one. Maybe (particularly for the less obvious integer/string/pointer macros below), having a description of what's being asserted? > + > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, 1, 1, "msg"); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_GE_MSG(test, 1, 1, "msg"); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_LE_MSG(test, 1, 1, "msg"); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_NE_MSG(test, 1, 0, "msg"); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_GT_MSG(test, 1, 0, "msg"); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_LT_MSG(test, 0, 1, "msg"); > + > + KUNIT_EXPECT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL_MSG(test, test, "msg"); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ_MSG(test, NULL, NULL, "msg"); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_NE_MSG(test, test, NULL, "msg"); > + > + KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ_MSG(test, "hi", "hi", "msg"); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_STRNEQ_MSG(test, "hi", "bye", "msg"); > +} > + > /* > * Here we make a list of all the test cases we want to add to the test suite > * below. > @@ -83,6 +128,7 @@ static struct kunit_case example_test_cases[] = { > KUNIT_CASE(example_simple_test), > KUNIT_CASE(example_skip_test), > KUNIT_CASE(example_mark_skipped_test), > + KUNIT_CASE(example_all_expect_macros_test), > {} > }; > > -- > 2.34.1.575.g55b058a8bb-goog >
On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 10:51 PM David Gow <davidgow@google.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 9:23 AM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> wrote: > > > > Currently, these macros are only really documented near the bottom of > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/dev-tools/kunit/api/test.html#c.KUNIT_FAIL. > > > > E.g. it's likely someone might just not realize that > > KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ() exists and instead use KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(strcmp()) > > or similar. > > > > This can also serve as a basic smoketest that the KUnit assert machinery > > still works for all the macros. > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> > > --- > > I think this is a great idea. I will note that this definitely isn't a > full test _of_ the assertion macros (in that it only exercises the > success case), so keeping it as an example is probably best. > > A few possible ideas below, but I'm happy enough with this as-is regardless. Applied the ideas locally. It led to this diffstat lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++----------------------- 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) So it's now a bit shorter and 8 of the added lines are new comments. > > Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com> > > > lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c b/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c > > index 51099b0ca29c..182a64c12541 100644 > > --- a/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c > > +++ b/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c > > @@ -69,6 +69,51 @@ static void example_mark_skipped_test(struct kunit *test) > > /* This line should run */ > > kunit_info(test, "You should see this line."); > > } > > + > > +/* > > + * This test shows off all the KUNIT_EXPECT macros. > > + */ > > +static void example_all_expect_macros_test(struct kunit *test) > > +{ > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, true); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, false); > > _Maybe_ it's worth having a comment for each of these groups ('boolean > assertions', 'integer assertions', 'pointer assertions', etc)? Good idea, done. > > > + > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 1, 1); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_GE(test, 1, 1); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_LE(test, 1, 1); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_NE(test, 1, 0); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_GT(test, 1, 0); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_LT(test, 0, 1); > > + > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, test); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, NULL, NULL); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_NE(test, test, NULL); > > + > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, "hi", "hi"); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_STRNEQ(test, "hi", "bye"); > > + > > + /* > > + * There are also _MSG variants of all of the above that let you include > > + * additional text on failure. > > + */ > > There are also the ASSERT vs EXPECT variations. While it may be > excessive to also include all of these, particularly in an example, it > might be worth mentioning them in a comment somewhere? I've gone ahead and added a section with one example + /* + * There are also ASSERT variants of all of the above that abort test + * execution if they fail. Useful for memory allocations, etc. + */ + KUNIT_ASSERT_GT(test, sizeof(char), 0); + > > Alternatively, if this is bloating the example too much, we could have > only one example each of the ASSERT and _MSG variants. > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE_MSG(test, true, "msg"); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, false, "msg"); > > Part of me feels that a better message than "msg" would be nice to > have here, but I can't think of a good one. Maybe (particularly for > the less obvious integer/string/pointer macros below), having a > description of what's being asserted? I've gone ahead and added truncated this down to one example + KUNIT_EXPECT_GT_MSG(test, sizeof(int), 0, "Your ints are 0-bit?!"); + KUNIT_ASSERT_GT_MSG(test, sizeof(int), 0, "Your ints are 0-bit?!"); > > > > > + > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, 1, 1, "msg"); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_GE_MSG(test, 1, 1, "msg"); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_LE_MSG(test, 1, 1, "msg"); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_NE_MSG(test, 1, 0, "msg"); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_GT_MSG(test, 1, 0, "msg"); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_LT_MSG(test, 0, 1, "msg"); > > + > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL_MSG(test, test, "msg"); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ_MSG(test, NULL, NULL, "msg"); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_NE_MSG(test, test, NULL, "msg"); > > + > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ_MSG(test, "hi", "hi", "msg"); > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_STRNEQ_MSG(test, "hi", "bye", "msg"); > > +} > > + > > /* > > * Here we make a list of all the test cases we want to add to the test suite > > * below. > > @@ -83,6 +128,7 @@ static struct kunit_case example_test_cases[] = { > > KUNIT_CASE(example_simple_test), > > KUNIT_CASE(example_skip_test), > > KUNIT_CASE(example_mark_skipped_test), > > + KUNIT_CASE(example_all_expect_macros_test), > > {} > > }; > > > > -- > > 2.34.1.575.g55b058a8bb-goog > >
diff --git a/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c b/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c index 51099b0ca29c..182a64c12541 100644 --- a/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c +++ b/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c @@ -69,6 +69,51 @@ static void example_mark_skipped_test(struct kunit *test) /* This line should run */ kunit_info(test, "You should see this line."); } + +/* + * This test shows off all the KUNIT_EXPECT macros. + */ +static void example_all_expect_macros_test(struct kunit *test) +{ + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, true); + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, false); + + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 1, 1); + KUNIT_EXPECT_GE(test, 1, 1); + KUNIT_EXPECT_LE(test, 1, 1); + KUNIT_EXPECT_NE(test, 1, 0); + KUNIT_EXPECT_GT(test, 1, 0); + KUNIT_EXPECT_LT(test, 0, 1); + + KUNIT_EXPECT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, test); + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, NULL, NULL); + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_NE(test, test, NULL); + + KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, "hi", "hi"); + KUNIT_EXPECT_STRNEQ(test, "hi", "bye"); + + /* + * There are also _MSG variants of all of the above that let you include + * additional text on failure. + */ + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE_MSG(test, true, "msg"); + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, false, "msg"); + + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, 1, 1, "msg"); + KUNIT_EXPECT_GE_MSG(test, 1, 1, "msg"); + KUNIT_EXPECT_LE_MSG(test, 1, 1, "msg"); + KUNIT_EXPECT_NE_MSG(test, 1, 0, "msg"); + KUNIT_EXPECT_GT_MSG(test, 1, 0, "msg"); + KUNIT_EXPECT_LT_MSG(test, 0, 1, "msg"); + + KUNIT_EXPECT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL_MSG(test, test, "msg"); + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ_MSG(test, NULL, NULL, "msg"); + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_NE_MSG(test, test, NULL, "msg"); + + KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ_MSG(test, "hi", "hi", "msg"); + KUNIT_EXPECT_STRNEQ_MSG(test, "hi", "bye", "msg"); +} + /* * Here we make a list of all the test cases we want to add to the test suite * below. @@ -83,6 +128,7 @@ static struct kunit_case example_test_cases[] = { KUNIT_CASE(example_simple_test), KUNIT_CASE(example_skip_test), KUNIT_CASE(example_mark_skipped_test), + KUNIT_CASE(example_all_expect_macros_test), {} };
Currently, these macros are only really documented near the bottom of https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/dev-tools/kunit/api/test.html#c.KUNIT_FAIL. E.g. it's likely someone might just not realize that KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ() exists and instead use KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(strcmp()) or similar. This can also serve as a basic smoketest that the KUnit assert machinery still works for all the macros. Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> --- lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+)