Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, 5 Jul 2017 09:48:31 -0700 > Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 07/05/2017 08:27 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: >> > On Wed, 5 Jul 2017 08:16:33 -0700 >> > Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> [ ... ] >> >> >> >> If we start shaming people for not providing unit tests, all we'll accomplish is >> >> that people will stop providing bug fixes. >> > >> > I need to be clearer on this. What I meant was, if there's a bug >> > where someone has a test that easily reproduces the bug, then if >> > there's not a test added to selftests for said bug, then we should >> > shame those into doing so. >> > >> >> I don't think that public shaming of kernel developers is going to work >> any better than public shaming of children or teenagers. >> >> Maybe a friendlier approach would be more useful ? > > I'm a friendly shamer ;-) > >> >> If a test to reproduce a problem exists, it might be more beneficial to suggest >> to the patch submitter that it would be great if that test would be submitted >> as unit test instead of shaming that person for not doing so. Acknowledging and >> praising kselftest submissions might help more than shaming for non-submissions. >> >> > A bug that is found by inspection or hard to reproduce test cases are >> > not applicable, as they don't have tests that can show a regression. >> > >> >> My concern would be that once the shaming starts, it won't stop. > > I think this is a communication issue. My word for "shaming" was to > call out a developer for not submitting a test. It wasn't about making > fun of them, or anything like that. I was only making a point > about how to teach people that they need to be more aware of the > testing infrastructure. Not about actually demeaning people. > > Lets take a hypothetical sample. Say someone posted a bug report with > an associated reproducer for it. The developer then runs the reproducer > sees the bug, makes a fix and sends it to Linus and stable. Now the > developer forgets this and continues on their merry way. Along comes > someone like myself and sees a reproducing test case for a bug, but > sees no test added to kselftests. I would send an email along the lines > of "Hi, I noticed that there was a reproducer for this bug you fixed. > How come there was no test added to the kselftests to make sure it > doesn't appear again?" There, I "shamed" them ;-) I just want to point out that kselftests are hard to build and run. As I was looking at another issue I found a bug in one of the tests. It had defined a constant wrong. I have a patch. It took me a week of poking at the kselftest code and trying one thing or another (between working on other things) before I could figure out which combination of things would let the test build and run. Until kselftests get easier to run I don't think they are something we want to push to hard. Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
