On Wed, 13 May 2020 at 06:30, David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > This is a proof-of-concept to support "skipping" tests. > > The kunit_mark_skipped() macro marks the current test as "skipped", with > the provided reason. The kunit_skip() macro will mark the test as > skipped, and abort the test. > > The TAP specification supports this "SKIP directive" as a comment after > the "ok" / "not ok" for a test. See the "Directives" section of the TAP > spec for details: > https://testanything.org/tap-specification.html#directives > > kunit_tool will parse this SKIP directive, and renders skipped tests in > yellow and counts them. Skipped tests do not affect the result for a > suite. > > Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > > Following on from discussions about the KCSAN test[1], which requires a > multi-core/processor system to make sense, it would be useful for tests > to be able to mark themselves as "skipped", where tests have runtime > dependencies which aren't met. > > As a proof-of-concept, this patch doesn't implement some things which > we'd ideally like to have (e.g., non-static "reasons" for skipping the > test, maybe some SKIP macros akin to the EXPECT and ASSERT ones), and > the implementation is still pretty hacky, but I though I'd put this out > there to see if there are any thoughts on the concept in general. > > Cheers, > -- David > > [1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/5/5/31 > > include/kunit/test.h | 12 ++++++++++++ > lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c | 7 +++++++ > lib/kunit/test.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++------- > tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py | 21 +++++++++++++++++---- > 4 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h > index 9b0c46a6ca1f..7817c5580b2c 100644 > --- a/include/kunit/test.h > +++ b/include/kunit/test.h > @@ -178,6 +178,7 @@ struct kunit_suite { > /* private - internal use only */ > struct dentry *debugfs; > char *log; > + const char *skip_directive; > }; > > /** > @@ -213,6 +214,8 @@ struct kunit { > * protect it with some type of lock. > */ > struct list_head resources; /* Protected by lock. */ > + > + const char *skip_directive; > }; > > void kunit_init_test(struct kunit *test, const char *name, char *log); > @@ -391,6 +394,15 @@ void kunit_cleanup(struct kunit *test); > > void kunit_log_append(char *log, const char *fmt, ...); > > +#define kunit_mark_skipped(test_or_suite, reason) \ > + (test_or_suite)->skip_directive = "SKIP " reason > + Would it be useful to make this accept any string possibly with a format? Otherwise, the reason will always need to be a constant string here. I'm fine with printing more detailed info via pr_warn() or so, if that's an unreasonable request. > +#define kunit_skip(test_or_suite, reason) \ > + do { \ > + kunit_mark_skipped(test_or_suite, reason); \ > + kunit_try_catch_throw(&((test_or_suite)->try_catch)); \ > + } while (0) > + [...] This looks good to me. One question I'd have is: will this work in test_init functions? Because in the KCSAN test, the test setup determines if we have enough CPUs, and then causes test_init to return a non-zero error code. Thanks, -- Marco
