Re: [PATCH v14 01/18] kunit: test: add KUnit test runner core

shuah
2019-08-23T18:32:12Z

On 8/23/19 11:54 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 10:34 AM shuah <shuah-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 8/23/19 11:27 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 10:05 AM shuah <shuah-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 8/23/19 10:48 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 8:33 AM shuah <shuah-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Brendan,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/20/19 5:20 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>>>>>> Add core facilities for defining unit tests; this provides a common way
>>>>>>> to define test cases, functions that execute code which is under test
>>>>>>> and determine whether the code under test behaves as expected; this also
>>>>>>> provides a way to group together related test cases in test suites (here
>>>>>>> we call them test_modules).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just define test cases and how to execute them for now; setting
>>>>>>> expectations on code will be defined later.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh-hQyY1W1yCW8ekmWlsbkhG0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org>
>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Logan Gunthorpe <logang-OTvnGxWRz7hWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>
>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> include/kunit/test.h | 179 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>> kunit/Kconfig | 17 ++++
>>>>>>> kunit/Makefile | 1 +
>>>>>>> kunit/test.c | 191 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>> 4 files changed, 388 insertions(+)
>>>>>>> create mode 100644 include/kunit/test.h
>>>>>>> create mode 100644 kunit/Kconfig
>>>>>>> create mode 100644 kunit/Makefile
>>>>>>> create mode 100644 kunit/test.c
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h
>>>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>>>> index 0000000000000..e0b34acb9ee4e
>>>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>>>> +++ b/include/kunit/test.h
>>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,179 @@
>>>>>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
>>>>>>> +/*
>>>>>>> + * Base unit test (KUnit) API.
>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2019, Google LLC.
>>>>>>> + * Author: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +#ifndef _KUNIT_TEST_H
>>>>>>> +#define _KUNIT_TEST_H
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +#include <linux/types.h>
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +struct kunit;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +/**
>>>>>>> + * struct kunit_case - represents an individual test case.
>>>>>>> + * @run_case: the function representing the actual test case.
>>>>>>> + * @name: the name of the test case.
>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>> + * A test case is a function with the signature, ``void (*)(struct kunit *)``
>>>>>>> + * that makes expectations (see KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE()) about code under test. Each
>>>>>>> + * test case is associated with a &struct kunit_suite and will be run after the
>>>>>>> + * suite's init function and followed by the suite's exit function.
>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>> + * A test case should be static and should only be created with the KUNIT_CASE()
>>>>>>> + * macro; additionally, every array of test cases should be terminated with an
>>>>>>> + * empty test case.
>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>> + * Example:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you fix these line continuations. It makes it very hard to read.
>>>>>> Sorry for this late comment. These comments lines are longer than 80
>>>>>> and wrap.
>>>>>
>>>>> None of the lines in this commit are over 80 characters in column
>>>>> width. Some are exactly 80 characters (like above).
>>>>>
>>>>> My guess is that you are seeing the diff added text (+ ), which when
>>>>> you add that to a line which is exactly 80 char in length ends up
>>>>> being over 80 char in email. If you apply the patch you will see that
>>>>> they are only 80 chars.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are several comment lines in the file that are way too long.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that checkpatch also does not complain about any over 80 char
>>>>> lines in this file.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry if I am misunderstanding what you are trying to tell me. Please
>>>>> confirm either way.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> WARNING: Avoid unnecessary line continuations
>>>> #258: FILE: include/kunit/test.h:137:
>>>> + */ \
>>>>
>>>> total: 0 errors, 2 warnings, 388 lines checked
>>>
>>> Ah, okay so you don't like the warning about the line continuation.
>>> That's not because it is over 80 char, but because there is a line
>>> continuation after a comment. I don't really see a way to get rid of
>>> it without removing the comment from inside the macro.
>>>
>>> I put this TODO there in the first place a Luis' request, and I put it
>>> in the body of the macro because this macro already had a kernel-doc
>>> comment and I didn't think that an implementation detail TODO belonged
>>> in the user documentation.
>>>
>>>> Go ahead fix these. It appears there are few lines that either longer
>>>> than 80. In general, I keep them around 75, so it is easier read.
>>>
>>> Sorry, the above is the only checkpatch warning other than the
>>> reminder to update the MAINTAINERS file.
>>>
>>> Are you saying you want me to go through and make all the lines fit in
>>> 75 char column width? I hope not because that is going to be a pretty
>>> substantial change to make.
>>>
>>
>> There are two things with these comment lines. One is checkpatch
>> complaining and the other is general readability.
>
> So for the checkpatch warning, do you want me to move the comment out
> of the macro body into the kernel-doc comment? I don't really think it
> is the right place for a comment of this nature, but I think it is
> probably better than dropping it entirely (I don't see how else to do
> it without just removing the comment entirely).
>

Don't drop the comments. It makes perfect sense to turn this into a
kernel-doc comment.

We are going back forth on this a lot. I see several lines 81+ in
this file. I am at 5.3-rc5 and my commit hooks aren't happy. I am
fine with it if you want to convert these to kernel-doc comments.
I think it makes perfect sense.

I would like it if you take a look and fix the lines that are longer
than 80. If you think you would rather spend time converting them to
kernel-doc, I am fine with it.

thanks,
-- Shuah