Hi David, On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 6:45 AM David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I've just sent out a pull request to get this working under UML as > well, which would simplify running these further: > https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/pull/766 Thanks a lot! > Yeah, these are all fair points: particularly for small doctests. > > Maybe having an optional name, which more significant tests could use > to override the file:line names? That could be useful for a few of the > larger, more often referenced tests. Sounds reasonable. I can add support for that. > Ugh: it's a bit ugly either way. I suspect that file:line is still > probably better, if only because we need some way of looking up the > test in the code if it fails. I'd hate for people to be randomly > hashing bits of just to find out what test is failing. One redeeming quality is that the assertion prints the line/file number in the generated file, so it would still be possible to check where it came from: [13:13:43] # rust_kernel_doctest_str_rs_somehash: ASSERTION FAILED at rust/doctests_kernel_generated.rs:2209 [13:13:43] Expected 2 > 3 to be true, but is false [13:13:43] not ok 43 - rust_kernel_doctest_str_rs_somehash [13:13:43] [FAILED] rust_kernel_doctest_str_rs_somehash Another alternative is to keep the file:line information around without embedding it into the test name, e.g. in a TAP comment or a mapping file (which `kunit.py` could read). But, yeah, before doing hashes or things like that, I would just go for simplicity and keep things as they are unless some use case really needs doctests to be stable. > Oops: I missed that (one of the issues with testing this on a > different machine which had a rust toolchain). Looks good to me. > > Ah: I didn't realise the plan was always to have crate-specific > suites, and possibly to split things up. > > The KTAP output specification does actually support arbitrary nesting > (though KUnit itself doesn't at the moment), which would potentially > be an option if (e.g.) providing the complete module nesting made > sense. I'm not convinced that'd make things easier to read, though. That is useful to know in case we need it, thanks! Cheers, Miguel
