On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 8:30 AM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-07-16 01:37:34)
> > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 12:57 AM Brendan Higgins
> > <brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 3:15 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-07-12 01:17:30)
> > > > > diff --git a/include/kunit/kunit-stream.h b/include/kunit/kunit-stream.h
> > > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > > index 0000000000000..a7b53eabf6be4
> > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > +++ b/include/kunit/kunit-stream.h
> > > > > +/**
> > > > > + * struct kunit_stream - a std::stream style string builder.
> > > > > + *
> > > > > + * A std::stream style string builder. Allows messages to be built up and
> > > > > + * printed all at once.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > +struct kunit_stream {
> > > > > + /* private: internal use only. */
> > > > > + struct kunit *test;
> > > > > + const char *level;
> > > >
> > > > Is the level changed? See my comment below, but I wonder if this whole
> > > > struct can go away and the wrappers can just operate on 'struct
> > > > string_stream' instead.
> > >
> > > I was inclined to agree with you when I first read your comment, but
> > > then I thought about the case that someone wants to add in a debug
> > > message (of which I currently have none). I think under most
> > > circumstances a user of kunit_stream would likely want to pick a
> > > default verbosity that maybe I should provide, but may still want
> > > different verbosity levels.
> > >
> > > The main reason I want to keep the types separate, string_stream vs.
> > > kunit_stream, is that they are intended to be used differently.
> > > string_stream is just a generic string builder. If you are using that,
> > > you are expecting to see someone building the string at some point and
> > > then doing something interesting with it. kunit_stream really tells
> > > you specifically that KUnit is putting together a message to
> > > communicate something to a user of KUnit. It is really used in a very
> > > specific way, and I wouldn't want to generalize its usage beyond how
> > > it is currently used. I think in order to preserve the author's
> > > intention it adds clarity to keep the types separate regardless of how
> > > similar they might be in reality.
>
> You may want to add some of these reasons to the commit text.
Will do.
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (!string_stream_is_empty(stream->internal_stream)) {
> > > > > + kunit_err(stream->test,
> > > > > + "End of test case reached with uncommitted stream entries\n");
> > > > > + kunit_stream_commit(stream);
> > > > > + }
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > >
> > > > Nitpick: Drop this extra newline.
> > >
> > > Oops, nice catch.
> >
> > Not super important, but I don't want you to think that I am ignoring
> > you. I think you must have unintentionally deleted the last function
> > in this file, or maybe you are referring to something that I am just
> > not seeing, but I don't see the extra newline here.
>
> No worries. Sorry for the noise.
>
> > > property of the input, it may or may not be enough information on its
> > > own for the expectation to fail, but we want to share the result of
> > > the property check with the user regardless, BUT only if the
> > > expectation as a whole fails.
> > >
> > > Hence, we can have multiple `struct kunit_stream`s associated with a
> > > `struct kunit` active at any given time.
>
> Makes sense. I wasn't sure if there were more than one stream associated
> with a test. Sounds like there are many to one so it can't just be a
> member of the test. This could be documented somewhere so this question
> doesn't come up again.
Sounds good. Will do.
Thanks!
