Daniel Latypov dlatypov@google.com writes:
Hello Daniel,
Thanks a lot for your feedback!
On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 2:23 AM Javier Martinez Canillas javierm@redhat.com wrote:
[...]
$ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run \ --kunitconfig=drivers/input/tests/.kunitconfig
Nice! A few small suggestions below as someone who has worked on KUnit.
FYI, to save a few keystrokes, you can omit the "/.kunitconfig" and just pass the dir, i.e. --kunitconfig=drivers/input/tests
Ah, cool. I didn't know that.
[...]
drivers/input/tests/input_test.c | 144 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I don't see the .kunitconfig in the diff. Was it accidentally forgotten or does this patch apply to a tree that already has the file?
(it's easy to forget since git will still ignore it by default, IIRC)
I did indeed forgot because as you mentioned git add complained and I missed that needed to force to add it.
[...]
Say Y here if you want to build the KUnit tests for the inputsubsystem. For more information about KUnit and unit tests ingeneral, please refer to the KUnit documentation inDocumentation/dev-tools/kunit/.If in doubt, say "N".FYI, I know this is in the style guide, but I'd personally feel free to leave out this paragraph.
Having such "advertising" about what KUnit is made more sense when less people knew about it. It's not known by everyone in the community yet, but we might be getting to a point where this turns into repetitive bloat.
Ok, I'll drop these.
[...]
ret = input_register_device(input_dev);KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0);(very unlikely that this matters, but...) Hmm, should we call input_free_device() if this fails? i.e. something like
ret = ...; if (ret) { input_free_device(input_dev); KUNIT_ASSERT_FAILURE(test, "failed to register device: %d", ret); }
Indeed. I'll do this too.
[...]
ret = input_get_poll_interval(input_dev);KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, -EINVAL);minor suggestion: can we inline these? E.g. KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, -EINVAL, input_get_poll_interval(input_dev)); This way on failure, KUnit can print the function call instead of just `ret`.
Users could always find out what failed by the line #, but including it in the output would be a bit nicer.
E.g. w/ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, ...)
# example_simple_test: EXPECTATION FAILED atlib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c:29 Expected 0 == input_get_poll_interval(input_dev), but input_get_poll_interval(input_dev) == 42 (0x2a)
verus
# example_simple_test: EXPECTATION FAILED atlib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c:28 Expected ret == 0, but ret == 42 (0x2a)
Great suggestion. I'll change too, it would also get rid of the ret variable.