> -----Original Message----- > From: Brendan Higgins > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 10:52 AM <Tim.Bird@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > It might be of interest to the automated testing mailing list too ? (Tim?) > > > > I think this is interesting to groups doing automated testing of the kernel > > (including myself) as another set of tests to run. Right now I don't see it > > as having any special attributes related to automation. But I could be > wrong. > > Pardon my ignorance, but by automated testing you mean a CI server > with presubmits, nightlys, and things of the sort? Yes. > > If that's the case, KUnit could be helpful because of the low resource > cost in running them and the speed at which they run. True. > There are some > other features we would like to add which would help with that goal as > well like test isolation. We actually have a presubmit server > internally for running KUnit tests that can usually respond to patches > with test results within a couple minutes. Would something like that > be interesting? I think the code and architecture of the software that handles presubmit, mail-list scanning, notifications, etc. would be of interest. But KUnit features themselves (macro definitions, mocking vs. faking, etc.) would not. I only say that in the context of CC-ing the automated testing list on the patch set. Of course the KUnit features are interesting by themselves for testers doing unit testing. -- Tim
