Re: [PATCH v12 11/18] kunit: test: add the concept of assertions

Brendan Higgins
2019-08-13T05:09:44Z

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 9:55 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-12 11:24:14)
> > Add support for assertions which are like expectations except the test
> > terminates if the assertion is not satisfied.
> >
> > The idea with assertions is that you use them to state all the
> > preconditions for your test. Logically speaking, these are the premises
> > of the test case, so if a premise isn't true, there is no point in
> > continuing the test case because there are no conclusions that can be
> > drawn without the premises. Whereas, the expectation is the thing you
> > are trying to prove. It is not used universally in x-unit style test
> > frameworks, but I really like it as a convention. You could still
> > express the idea of a premise using the above idiom, but I think
> > KUNIT_ASSERT_* states the intended idea perfectly.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> > Reviewed-by: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>
>
> Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
>
> > + * Sets an expectation that the values that @left and @right evaluate to are
> > + * not equal. This is semantically equivalent to
> > + * KUNIT_ASSERT_TRUE(@test, strcmp((@left), (@right))). See KUNIT_ASSERT_TRUE()
> > + * for more information.
> > + */
> > +#define KUNIT_ASSERT_STRNEQ(test, left, right) \
> > + KUNIT_BINARY_STR_NE_ASSERTION(test, \
> > + KUNIT_ASSERTION, \
> > + left, \
> > + right)
> > +
> > +#define KUNIT_ASSERT_STRNEQ_MSG(test, left, right, fmt, ...) \
> > + KUNIT_BINARY_STR_NE_MSG_ASSERTION(test, \
> > + KUNIT_ASSERTION, \
> > + left, \
> > + right, \
> > + fmt, \
>
> Same question about tabbing too.

Yep. WIll fix.

> > diff --git a/kunit/test-test.c b/kunit/test-test.c
> > index 88f4cdf03db2a..058f3fb37458a 100644
> > --- a/kunit/test-test.c
> > +++ b/kunit/test-test.c
> > @@ -78,11 +78,13 @@ static int kunit_try_catch_test_init(struct kunit *test)
> > struct kunit_try_catch_test_context *ctx;
> >
> > ctx = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*ctx), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, ctx);
>
> Ah ok. Question still stands if kunit_kzalloc() should just have the
> assertion on failure.

Right. In the previous patch KUNIT_ASSERT_* doesn't exist yet, so I
can't use it. And rather than fall back to return -ENOMEM like I
should have, I evidently forgot to do that.

> > test->priv = ctx;
> >
> > ctx->try_catch = kunit_kmalloc(test,
> > sizeof(*ctx->try_catch),
> > GFP_KERNEL);
> > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, ctx->try_catch);
> >