On 11/06/2018 06:28 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 11:44 AM Shuah Khan <shuah@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/23/2018 05:57 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> <snip>
>>> + * Example:
>>> + *
>>> + * .. code-block:: c
>>> + *
>>> + * void add_test_basic(struct test *test)
>>> + * {
>>> + * TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, 1, add(1, 0));
>>> + * TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, 2, add(1, 1));
>>> + * TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, add(-1, 1));
>>> + * TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, INT_MAX, add(0, INT_MAX));
>>> + * TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, -1, add(INT_MAX, INT_MIN));
>>> + * }
>>> + *
>>> + * static struct test_case example_test_cases[] = {
>>> + * TEST_CASE(add_test_basic),
>>> + * {},
>>> + * };
>>> + *
>>> + */
>>> +struct test_case {
>>> + void (*run_case)(struct test *test);
>>> + const char name[256];
>>> +
>>> + /* private: internal use only. */
>>> + bool success;
>>> +};
>>> +
>>
>> Introducing a prefix kunit_* might be a good idea for the API.
>> This comment applies to the rest of patches as well.
>
> What about kunit_* instead of test_* and kmock_* instead of mock_*?
> Does that seem reasonable?
>
kunit_* would work well.
thanks,
-- Shuah
