Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] fpga: add initial KUnit test suite

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


> >>>> +	ret = init_sgt_bit(&sgt_bit, fake_bit, FAKE_BIT_SIZE);
> >>>> +	KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
> >>>
> >>> This is not fpga function, do we need the ASSERT?
> >>>
> >>
> >> You're right. I'll change it to EXPECT.
> > 
> > Mm.. I think we may move the sgt initialization in .suite_init, and just
> > return ERROR for failure. Does it help to quickly find out this is an
> > ENV error, not a test case failure?
> I looked through the documentation for guidelines on how to handle
> initialization errors, but found only the eeprom example where KUNIT_ASSERT
> is used to handle errors in eeprom_buffer_test_init(). Existing test suites
> seem to use different approaches to handle initialization errors. Some
> return an error code, while others use KUnit assertions.
> I'm more inclined to follow the example in the documentation and use
> KUnit assertions. Does this approach work for you?

It's good to me.

> After some thought, I'm restructuring the code to test single components
> in isolation before testing them together. In this way, I think the test
> suite will be more in line with the unit testing methodology.
> Thanks,
> Marco

[Index of Archives]     [LM Sensors]     [Linux Sound]     [ALSA Users]     [ALSA Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Media]     [Kernel]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Media]

  Powered by Linux