Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 05/13] app/test: introduce librte_security tests

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

01/04/2020 19:09, Akhil Goyal:
> Hi Lukasz,
> 
> > This patch introduces set of unit tests of librte_security API functions.
> > Tests are added to dpdk-test application and can be run with
> > "security_autotest" runtime command.
> > 
> > This is the first patch in the series of patches as adding all test cases
> > for all API functions in a single patch would make it unreadable.
> > 
> > This patch defines structure of the file and necessary test framework
> > initialization. It also contains first subset of unit tests for
> > rte_security_session_create API function.
> > 
> > Structure of the tests file is following:
> > - macros for making tests more readable;
> > - mockup structures and functions for rte_security_ops;
> > - test suite and test cases setup and teardown functions;
> > - tests functions;
> > - declaration of testcases.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Lukasz Wojciechowski <l.wojciechow@partner.samsung.com>
> > Change-Id: I3a4585f56ef1a75b2984fcea3a3e4a30e4c2d8a6
> > ---
> 
> This patchset has a lot of repeated(for each API) tests just to check the input parameters to
> Rte_security APIs. I am not sure what value addition is done to separate out each API as a separate
> Negative Test. Instead a single case can be added to test all APIs with inappropriate arguments.
> We should add more positive cases with proper session parameters.
> 
> Thomas,
> Do we allow these type of test cases in other modules?

I did not review these patches, but I think we can try to compare
with tests done on eventdev library.
It would be interesting to have an opinion from Declan.

These rte_security tests look quite big.
However I don't know what is too big for test code?
Lukasz, please could you explain the initial motivation when writing
these tests? Are you especially interested in rte_security?
Or do you plan to reproduce this effort on other libraries?