On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 09:34:40AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>> I am applying various patches to Kconfig these days.
>>
>> However, I fear regressions. I have been thinking of unit-tests.
>>
>> There are various cryptic parts in Kconfig and corner cases where
>> it is difficult to notice breakage. If unit-tests cover those,
>> I will be able to apply changes more confidently.
>>
>> So, here is the trial.
>>
>> After fixing some problems, I will add a basic test framework.
>> This is based on pytest. Also, this is written in Python 3.
>> Python 2 will return in 2020. So, I believe new python tools should be
>> written in Python 3.
>>
>> This is my Python 3 and pytest versions.
>>
>> $ python3 --version
>> Python 3.5.2
>> $ python3 -m pytest --version
>> This is pytest version 3.4.0, imported from /home/masahiro/.local/lib/python3.5/site-packages/pytest.py
>>
>> If I use old pytest version, some parts did not work as expected.
>> If this does not work for you, please consider using newer pytest.
>>
>> I will brush up the code more and add more test cases to do a better job.
>> Before proceeding more, I'd like to get consensus for this approach.
>> If you have an idea for better implementation, comments are appreciated.
>
> Personally I think this is great stuff. I too have never wanted to
> touch Kconfig stuff due to the complexity, and having unit tests like
> this is a great idea to help ensure that things do not break.
>
> Your first 5 patches should be queued up for the next merge window, no
> problem (see my comments on the 6th). As for the rest, I don't have any
> objection to them, and using python3 over python2 is a good idea. And
> anyone who wants to do Kconfig work can easily install the needed
> packages, it's not required by any "normal" kernel developer.
>
> Anyway, nice job, it's great to see this happening, no objection from me
> at all!
>
> greg k-h
Yeah, breaking Kconfig is a sure way to feel the wrath.
The only reason I feel somewhat confident modifying Kconfig is that
the Kconfiglib test suite happens to work as a regression test for the
C implementation as well. It compares the .config files produced by
the two implementations for all defconfig files and for
all{no,yes,def}config, for all ARCHes, meaning any changes to the
output of the C tools get flagged as well (with a diff).
Having some "native" tests is great as well. I'm a big fan of
automatic testing. :)
In case you want to run the Kconfiglib test suite at any point, here's
how to do it (in the kernel root):
$ git clone git://github.com/ulfalizer/Kconfiglib.git
$ git am Kconfiglib/makefile.patch
$ python Kconfiglib/testsuite.py speedy
Cheers,
Ulf
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
