Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] kunit: Support for Parameterized Testing

Marco Elver
2020-11-06T08:11:39Z

On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 06:54, Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 06/11/20 1:25 am, Marco Elver wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 04:02PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote:
> >> On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 15:30, Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> >>>>> I tried adding support to run each parameter as a distinct test case by
> >>>>> making changes to kunit_run_case_catch_errors(). The issue here is that
> >>>>> since the results are displayed in KTAP format, this change will result in
> >>>>> each parameter being considered a subtest of another subtest (test case
> >>>>> in KUnit).
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you have example output? That might help understand what's going on.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> The change that I tried can be seen here (based on the v4 patch):
> >>> https://gist.github.com/arpi-r/4822899087ca4cc34572ed9e45cc5fee.
> >>>
> >>> Using the kunit tool, I get this error:
> >>>
> >>> [19:20:41] [ERROR] expected 7 test suites, but got -1
> >>> [ERROR] no tests run!
> >>> [19:20:41] ============================================================
> >>> [19:20:41] Testing complete. 0 tests run. 0 failed. 0 crashed.
> >>>
> >>> But this error is only because of how the tool displays the results.
> >>> The test actually does run, as can be seen in the dmesg output:
> >>>
> >>> TAP version 14
> >>> 1..7
> >>> # Subtest: ext4_inode_test
> >>> 1..1
> >>> ok 1 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding 1
> >>> ok 1 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding 2
> >>> ok 1 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding 3
> >>> ok 1 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding 4
> >>> ok 1 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding 5
> >>> ok 1 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding 6
> >>> ok 1 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding 7
> >>> ok 1 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding 8
> >>> ok 1 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding 9
> >>> ok 1 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding 10
> >>> ok 1 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding 11
> >>> ok 1 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding 12
> >>> ok 1 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding 13
> >>> ok 1 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding 14
> >>> ok 1 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding 15
> >>> ok 1 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding 16
> >>> ok 1 - ext4_inode_test
> >>> (followed by other kunit test outputs)
> >>
> >> Hmm, interesting. Let me play with your patch a bit.
> >>
> >> One option is to just have the test case number increment as well,
> >> i.e. have this:
> >> | ok 1 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding#1
> >> | ok 2 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding#2
> >> | ok 3 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding#3
> >> | ok 4 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding#4
> >> | ok 5 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding#5
> >> ...
> >>
> >> Or is there something else I missed?
> >
> > Right, so TAP wants the exact number of tests it will run ahead of time.
> > In which case we can still put the results of each parameterized test in
> > a diagnostic. Please see my proposed patch below, which still does
> > proper initialization/destruction of each parameter case as if it was
> > its own test case.
> >
> > With it the output looks as follows:
> >
> > | TAP version 14
> > | 1..6
> > | # Subtest: ext4_inode_test
> > | 1..1
> > | # ok param#0 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding
> > | # ok param#1 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding
> > | # ok param#2 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding
> > | # ok param#3 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding
> > | # ok param#4 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding
> > | # ok param#5 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding
> > | # ok param#6 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding
> > | # ok param#7 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding
> > | # ok param#8 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding
> > | # ok param#9 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding
> > | # ok param#10 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding
> > | # ok param#11 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding
> > | # ok param#12 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding
> > | # ok param#13 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding
> > | # ok param#14 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding
> > | # ok param#15 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding
> > | ok 1 - inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding
> > | ok 1 - ext4_inode_test
> >
> > Would that be reasonable? If so, feel free to take the patch and
> > test/adjust as required.
> >
> > I'm not sure on the best format -- is there is a recommended format for
> > parameterized test result output? If not, I suppose we can put anything
> > we like into the diagnostic.
> >
>
> I think this format of output should be fine for parameterized tests.
> But, this patch has the same issue as earlier. While, the tests run and
> this is the output that can be seen using dmesg, it still causes an issue on
> using the kunit tool. It gives a similar error:
>
> [11:07:38] [ERROR] expected 7 test suites, but got -1
> [11:07:38] [ERROR] expected_suite_index -1, but got 2
> [11:07:38] [ERROR] got unexpected test suite: kunit-try-catch-test
> [ERROR] no tests run!
> [11:07:38] ============================================================
> [11:07:38] Testing complete. 0 tests run. 0 failed. 0 crashed.
>

I'd suggest testing without these patches and diffing the output.
AFAIK we're not adding any new non-# output, so it might be a
pre-existing bug in some parsing code. Either that, or the parsing
code does not respect the # correctly?

Thanks,
-- Marco