I just tried to give this a spin on some of my tests and noticed some
more things (apologies for the multiple rounds of comments):
On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 at 19:36, Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
> /**
> * struct kunit_suite - describes a related collection of &struct kunit_case
> @@ -208,6 +217,15 @@ struct kunit {
> const char *name; /* Read only after initialization! */
> char *log; /* Points at case log after initialization */
> struct kunit_try_catch try_catch;
> + /* param_values points to test case parameters in parameterized tests */
> + void *param_values;
This should be singular, i.e. "param_value", since the generator only
generates 1 value for each test. Whether or not that value is a
pointer that points to more than 1 value or is an integer etc. is
entirely test-dependent.
> + /*
> + * current_param stores the index of the parameter in
> + * the array of parameters in parameterized tests.
> + * current_param + 1 is printed to indicate the parameter
> + * that causes the test to fail in case of test failure.
> + */
> + int current_param;
I think, per your comment above, this should be named "param_index".
Also, I would suggest removing the mention of "array" in the comment,
because the parameters aren't dependent on use of an array.
> /*
> * success starts as true, and may only be set to false during a
> * test case; thus, it is safe to update this across multiple
> @@ -1742,4 +1760,18 @@ do { \
> fmt, \
> ##__VA_ARGS__)
>
> +/**
> + * KUNIT_PARAM_GENERATOR() - Helper method for test parameter generators
> + * required in parameterized tests.
> + * @name: prefix of the name for the test parameter generator function.
> + * @prev: a pointer to the previous test parameter, NULL for first parameter.
> + * @array: a user-supplied pointer to an array of test parameters.
> + */
> +#define KUNIT_PARAM_GENERATOR(name, array) \
> + static void *name##_gen_params(void *prev) \
> + { \
> + typeof((array)[0]) * __next = prev ? ((typeof(__next)) prev) + 1 : (array); \
> + return __next - (array) < ARRAY_SIZE((array)) ? __next : NULL; \
> + }
> +
> #endif /* _KUNIT_TEST_H */
> diff --git a/lib/kunit/test.c b/lib/kunit/test.c
> index 750704abe89a..b70ab9b12f3b 100644
> --- a/lib/kunit/test.c
> +++ b/lib/kunit/test.c
> @@ -127,6 +127,11 @@ unsigned int kunit_test_case_num(struct kunit_suite *suite,
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kunit_test_case_num);
>
> +static void kunit_print_failed_param(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> + kunit_err(test, "\n\tTest failed at parameter: %d\n", test->current_param + 1);
> +}
Is this the only place where the param index is used? It might be
helpful to show the index together with the test-case name, otherwise
we get a series of test cases in the output which are all named the
same which can be confusing.
> static void kunit_print_string_stream(struct kunit *test,
> struct string_stream *stream)
> {
> @@ -168,6 +173,8 @@ static void kunit_fail(struct kunit *test, struct kunit_assert *assert)
> assert->format(assert, stream);
>
> kunit_print_string_stream(test, stream);
> + if (test->param_values)
> + kunit_print_failed_param(test);
>
> WARN_ON(string_stream_destroy(stream));
> }
> @@ -239,7 +246,18 @@ static void kunit_run_case_internal(struct kunit *test,
> }
> }
>
> - test_case->run_case(test);
> + if (!test_case->generate_params) {
> + test_case->run_case(test);
> + } else {
> + test->param_values = test_case->generate_params(NULL);
> + test->current_param = 0;
> +
> + while (test->param_values) {
> + test_case->run_case(test);
> + test->param_values = test_case->generate_params(test->param_values);
> + test->current_param++;
> + }
> + }
> }
Looking forward to v4. :-)
Thanks,
-- Marco
