On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 19:28, Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Implementation of support for parameterized testing in KUnit.
> This approach requires the creation of a test case using the
> KUNIT_CASE_PARAM macro that accepts a generator function as input.
> This generator function should return the next parameter given the
> previous parameter in parameterized tests. It also provides
> a macro to generate common-case generators.
>
> Signed-off-by: Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@xxxxxxxxx>
> Co-developed-by: Marco Elver <elver@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <elver@xxxxxxxxxx>
[...]
> - kunit_suite_for_each_test_case(suite, test_case)
> - kunit_run_case_catch_errors(suite, test_case);
> + kunit_suite_for_each_test_case(suite, test_case) {
> + struct kunit test = { .param_value = NULL, .param_index = 0 };
> + bool test_success = true;
> +
> + if (test_case->generate_params)
> + test.param_value = test_case->generate_params(NULL);
> +
> + do {
> + kunit_run_case_catch_errors(suite, test_case, &test);
> + test_success &= test_case->success;
> +
> + if (test_case->generate_params) {
> + kunit_log(KERN_INFO, &test,
> + KUNIT_SUBTEST_INDENT
> + "# %s: param-%d %s",
> + test_case->name, test.param_index,
> + kunit_status_to_string(test.success));
Sorry, I still found something. The patch I sent had this aligned with
the '(', whereas when I apply this patch it no longer is aligned. Why?
I see the rest of the file also aligns arguments with opening '(', so
I think your change is inconsistent.
Thanks,
-- Marco
