On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 11:42 PM David Gow davidgow@google.com wrote:
It's possible that a parameterised test could end up with zero parameters. At the moment, the test function will nevertheless be called with NULL as the parameter. Instead, don't try to run the test code, and just mark the test as SKIPped.
Reported-by: Daniel Latypov dlatypov@google.com Signed-off-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com
Reviewed-by: Daniel Latypov dlatypov@google.com
There's a small bug in this patch noted below, we just need to move the "# Subtest" change into the child patch. If/when we make that change, I have an optional suggestion about flipping the if/else branch.
But other than that, this looks good to me.
Changes since v2: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20211027013702.2039566-3-davidgow@go...
- Rework to not share the loop between the parameterised and non-parameterised test cases.
- Suggested by Daniel Latypov.
- Avoids using a magic non-zero pointer value.
lib/kunit/test.c | 16 ++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/kunit/test.c b/lib/kunit/test.c index 3bd741e50a2d..dfe1127aacfd 100644 --- a/lib/kunit/test.c +++ b/lib/kunit/test.c @@ -508,12 +508,12 @@ int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite) /* Get initial param. */ param_desc[0] = '\0'; test.param_value = test_case->generate_params(NULL, param_desc);
}
kunit_log(KERN_INFO, &test, KUNIT_SUBTEST_INDENT KUNIT_SUBTEST_INDENT"# Subtest: %s", test_case->name);
It looks like this change accidentally made its way into this patch as opposed to the child.
This commit itself gives me a traffic light (red/yellow/green statuses):
[ERROR] Test inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding: 0 tests run! ====== [NO TESTS RUN] inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding ======= ================= [PASSED] ext4_inode_test ================= ============================================================
The problem is the output becomes this: # Subtest: ext4_inode_test 1..1 # Subtest: inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding # inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding: ok 1 - 1901-12-13 Lower bound of 32bit < 0 timestamp, no extra bits ...
do {kunit_run_case_catch_errors(suite, test_case, &test);
while (test.param_value) {kunit_run_case_catch_errors(suite, test_case, &test);
if (test_case->generate_params) { if (param_desc[0] == '\0') { snprintf(param_desc, sizeof(param_desc), "param-%d", test.param_index);@@ -530,11 +530,15 @@ int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite) param_desc[0] = '\0'; test.param_value = test_case->generate_params(test.param_value, param_desc); test.param_index++;
}
kunit_update_stats(¶m_stats, test.status);}} else {
I have a very slight preference for having the order of these branches swapped. i.e.
if (!test_case->generate_params) { /* Non-parameterised test */ } else { ... }
I prefer this because I think it's more readable for a few reasons: * I like having the "normal" branch come first. This is likely the code path a reader would care more about. * I prefer having the shorter branch come first. It makes it easier to read it through and see "oh, so this branch is just that one but with XYZ"
/* Non-parameterised test. */kunit_run_case_catch_errors(suite, test_case, &test); kunit_update_stats(¶m_stats, test.status);}
} while (test.param_value); kunit_print_test_stats(&test, param_stats);-- 2.33.0.1079.g6e70778dc9-goog