On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 6:47 PM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 3/21/19 6:30 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 5:22 PM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On 2/27/19 7:52 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote: > > < snip > but thanks for the comments in the snipped section. > > > >> > >> Thanks for leaving 18/19 and 19/19 off in v4. > > > > Sure, no problem. It was pretty clear that it was a waste of both of > > our times to continue discussing those at this juncture. :-) > > > > Do you still want me to try to convert the DT not-exactly-unittest to > > KUnit? I would kind of prefer (I don't feel *super* strongly about the > > matter) we don't call it that since I was intending for it to be the > > flagship initial example, but I certainly don't mind trying to clean > > this patch up to get it up to snuff. It's really just a question of > > whether it is worth it to you. > > In the long term, if KUnit is adopted by the kernel, then I think it > probably makes sense for devicetree unittest to convert from using > our own unittest() function to report an individual test pass/fail > to instead use something like KUNIT_EXPECT_*() to provide more > consistent test messages to test frameworks. That is assuming > KUNIT_EXPECT_*() provides comparable functionality. I still have > not looked into that question since the converted tests (patch 15/17 > in v4) still does not execute without throwing internal errors. Sounds good. > > If that conversion occurred, I would also avoid the ASSERTs. Noted.
