Hi! > It's just a small example how things could be. Draft, not meant to be > really merged. But instead of defining shell library (with more useful > helpers), I'd rather adopt LTP shell [1] and C [2] API to kselftest. > LTP API [1] is more like a framework, easy to use with a lot of helpers > making tests 1) small, concentrating on the problem itself 2) have > unique output. API is well documented [3] [4], it's creator Cyril Hrubis > made it after years experience of handling (at the time) quite bad > quality LTP code. Rewriting LTP tests to use this API improved tests a > lot (less buggy, easier to read). > > Some examples of advantages of LTP API: > * SAFE_*() macros for C, which handles errors inside a library > * unified messages, unified test status, unified way to exit testing due > missing functionality, at the end of testing there is summary of passed, > failed and skipped tests > * many prepared functionality for both C and shell > * handling threads, parent-child synchronization > * setup and cleanup functions > * "flags" for defining requirements or certain functionality (need root, temporary > directory, ...) > * and many other I guess that I can help to create a library with a subset of LTP C API that could be used to implement C tests if that is something that has a good chance to get adopted. -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@xxxxxxx
