From: "Thomas Weißschuh" <thomas.weissschuh@linutronix.de>
To: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Cc: "Masahiro Yamada" <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
"Nathan Chancellor" <nathan@kernel.org>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Willy Tarreau" <w@1wt.eu>,
"Thomas Weißschuh" <linux@weissschuh.net>,
"Brendan Higgins" <brendan.higgins@linux.dev>,
"Rae Moar" <rmoar@google.com>, "Shuah Khan" <shuah@kernel.org>,
"Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@lwn.net>,
"Nicolas Schier" <nicolas.schier@linux.dev>,
"Paul Walmsley" <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
"Palmer Dabbelt" <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
"Albert Ou" <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
"Alexandre Ghiti" <alex@ghiti.fr>,
"Christophe Leroy" <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
workflows@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 09/16] kunit: tool: Don't overwrite test status based on subtest counts
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2025 15:23:09 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250620152016-7f39b3bb-1738-4593-bc59-6ab37f04feee@linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABVgOSkG3dY3THo5DQOvWj1xX8XFFnnk7CXvVE2opQJZg4nwXg@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 05:37:44PM +0800, David Gow wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 at 15:38, Thomas Weißschuh
> <thomas.weissschuh@linutronix.de> wrote:
> >
> > If a subtest itself reports success, but the outer testcase fails,
> > the whole testcase should be reported as a failure.
> > However the status is recalculated based on the test counts,
> > overwriting the outer test result.
> > Synthesize a failed test in this case to make sure the failure is not
> > swallowed.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@linutronix.de>
> > ---
>
> Hmm... this is definitely a nasty edge-case. I don't completely like
> this solution, but none of the other options seem drastically better.
>
> I think the more obvious options are either to _always_ count tests
> alongside their subtests, or to _never_ do so, but acknowledge that
> "test failed, but failure count is 0" is a valid option. But neither
> of those are especially satisfying, either greatly inflating test
> counts, or creating obvious contradictions.
>
> So I'm tentatively in favour of this, but if anyone has a nicer way of
> doing it, I'm all ears.
Agreed, it is not great. I'd also be happy for better ideas.
> The implementation looks good. If we can add the explicit checks for
> the sub(sub)test results as mentioned in the previous patch, that'd be
> even better.
>
> Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
>
> > tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py | 5 +++++
> > tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py | 2 +-
> > tools/testing/kunit/test_data/test_is_test_passed-failure-nested.log | 3 +++
> > 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py
> > index c176487356e6c94882046b19ea696d750905b8d5..2478beb28fc3db825855ad46200340e884da7df1 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py
> > +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py
> > @@ -686,6 +686,11 @@ def bubble_up_test_results(test: Test) -> None:
> > counts.add_status(status)
> > elif test.counts.get_status() == TestStatus.TEST_CRASHED:
> > test.status = TestStatus.TEST_CRASHED
> > + if not test.ok_status():
> > + for t in subtests:
> > + if not t.ok_status():
> > + counts.add_status(t.status)
> > + break
> >
> > def parse_test(lines: LineStream, expected_num: int, log: List[str], is_subtest: bool, printer: Printer) -> Test:
> > """
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
> > index 691cde9b030f7729128490c1bdb42ccee1967ad6..c25f52650837e83325b06bddd2aa665fd29f91d9 100755
> > --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
> > +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
> > @@ -170,7 +170,7 @@ class KUnitParserTest(unittest.TestCase):
> > with open(nested_log) as file:
> > result = kunit_parser.parse_run_tests(file.readlines(), stdout)
> > self.assertEqual(kunit_parser.TestStatus.FAILURE, result.status)
> > - self.assertEqual(result.counts.failed, 2)
> > + self.assertEqual(result.counts.failed, 3)
> > self.assertEqual(kunit_parser.TestStatus.FAILURE, result.subtests[0].status)
>
> Could we add:
> self.assertEqual(kunit_parser.TestStatus.SUCCESS,
> result.subtests[0].subtests[0].status)
>
> > self.assertEqual(kunit_parser.TestStatus.FAILURE, result.subtests[1].status)
Ack.
> and
>
> self.assertEqual(kunit_parser.TestStatus.FAILURE,
> result.subtests[1].subtests[0].status)
This is now already in the previous patch.
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/test_data/test_is_test_passed-failure-nested.log b/tools/testing/kunit/test_data/test_is_test_passed-failure-nested.log
> > index 835816e0a07715a514f5f5afab1b6250037feaf4..cd9033c464792e6294905a5676346684182874ad 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/kunit/test_data/test_is_test_passed-failure-nested.log
> > +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/test_data/test_is_test_passed-failure-nested.log
> > @@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
> > KTAP version 1
> > 1..2
> > + KTAP version 1
> > + 1..1
> > + ok 1 test 1
> > not ok 1 subtest 1
> > KTAP version 1
> > 1..1
> >
> > --
> > 2.49.0
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-20 13:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-06-11 7:38 [PATCH v3 00/16] kunit: Introduce UAPI testing framework Thomas Weißschuh
2025-06-11 7:38 ` [PATCH v3 01/16] kbuild: userprogs: avoid duplicating of flags inherited from kernel Thomas Weißschuh
2025-06-11 13:52 ` Nicolas Schier
2025-06-11 7:38 ` [PATCH v3 02/16] kbuild: userprogs: also inherit byte order and ABI " Thomas Weißschuh
2025-06-11 13:53 ` Nicolas Schier
2025-06-16 14:49 ` Masahiro Yamada
2025-06-17 7:39 ` Thomas Weißschuh
2025-06-18 1:14 ` Masahiro Yamada
2025-06-11 7:38 ` [PATCH v3 03/16] init: re-add CONFIG_CC_CAN_LINK_STATIC Thomas Weißschuh
2025-06-11 14:04 ` Nicolas Schier
2025-06-11 7:38 ` [PATCH v3 04/16] kbuild: userprogs: add nolibc support Thomas Weißschuh
2025-06-11 14:09 ` Nicolas Schier
2025-06-16 15:35 ` Masahiro Yamada
2025-06-17 7:59 ` Thomas Weißschuh
2025-06-18 1:15 ` Masahiro Yamada
2025-06-11 7:38 ` [PATCH v3 05/16] kbuild: introduce CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_NOLIBC Thomas Weißschuh
2025-06-11 7:38 ` [PATCH v3 06/16] kbuild: doc: add label for userprogs section Thomas Weißschuh
2025-06-11 7:38 ` [PATCH v3 07/16] kbuild: introduce blob framework Thomas Weißschuh
2025-06-16 15:38 ` Masahiro Yamada
2025-06-17 7:50 ` Thomas Weißschuh
2025-06-11 7:38 ` [PATCH v3 08/16] kunit: tool: Add test for nested test result reporting Thomas Weißschuh
2025-06-20 9:37 ` David Gow
2025-06-20 13:20 ` Thomas Weißschuh
2025-06-11 7:38 ` [PATCH v3 09/16] kunit: tool: Don't overwrite test status based on subtest counts Thomas Weißschuh
2025-06-20 9:37 ` David Gow
2025-06-20 13:23 ` Thomas Weißschuh [this message]
2025-06-11 7:38 ` [PATCH v3 10/16] kunit: tool: Parse skipped tests from kselftest.h Thomas Weißschuh
2025-06-20 9:37 ` David Gow
2025-06-11 7:38 ` [PATCH v3 11/16] kunit: Always descend into kunit directory during build Thomas Weißschuh
2025-06-20 9:47 ` David Gow
2025-06-11 7:38 ` [PATCH v3 12/16] kunit: qemu_configs: loongarch: Enable LSX/LSAX Thomas Weißschuh
2025-06-20 9:37 ` David Gow
2025-06-11 7:38 ` [PATCH v3 13/16] kunit: Introduce UAPI testing framework Thomas Weißschuh
2025-06-20 9:47 ` David Gow
2025-06-20 13:43 ` Thomas Weißschuh
2025-06-11 7:38 ` [PATCH v3 14/16] kunit: uapi: Add example for UAPI tests Thomas Weißschuh
2025-06-20 9:47 ` David Gow
2025-06-11 7:38 ` [PATCH v3 15/16] kunit: uapi: Introduce preinit executable Thomas Weißschuh
2025-06-20 9:48 ` David Gow
2025-06-11 7:38 ` [PATCH v3 16/16] kunit: uapi: Validate usability of /proc Thomas Weißschuh
2025-06-20 9:48 ` David Gow
2025-06-20 13:50 ` Thomas Weißschuh
2025-06-20 9:37 ` [PATCH v3 00/16] kunit: Introduce UAPI testing framework David Gow
2025-06-20 13:18 ` Thomas Weißschuh
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20250620152016-7f39b3bb-1738-4593-bc59-6ab37f04feee@linutronix.de \
--to=thomas.weissschuh@linutronix.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alex@ghiti.fr \
--cc=aou@eecs.berkeley.edu \
--cc=brendan.higgins@linux.dev \
--cc=christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=davidgow@google.com \
--cc=kunit-dev@googlegroups.com \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux@weissschuh.net \
--cc=masahiroy@kernel.org \
--cc=nathan@kernel.org \
--cc=nicolas.schier@linux.dev \
--cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
--cc=paul.walmsley@sifive.com \
--cc=rmoar@google.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=w@1wt.eu \
--cc=workflows@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).