On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 11:29AM -0700, Daniel Latypov wrote: > On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 1:56 AM 'Marco Elver' via KUnit Development > <kunit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 01:11AM -0700, David Gow wrote: > > > Add a new KUnit test suite which contains tests which are always > > > skipped. This is used as an example for how to write tests which are > > > skipped, and to demonstrate the difference between kunit_skip() and > > > kunit_mark_skipped(). > > > > > > Because these tests do not pass (they're skipped), they are not enabled > > > by default, or by the KUNIT_ALL_TESTS config option: they must be > > > enabled explicitly by setting CONFIG_KUNIT_EXAMPLE_SKIP_TEST=y in either > > > a .config or .kunitconfig file. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > lib/kunit/Kconfig | 15 +++++++++ > > > lib/kunit/Makefile | 2 ++ > > > lib/kunit/kunit-example-skip-test.c | 52 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 3 files changed, 69 insertions(+) > > > create mode 100644 lib/kunit/kunit-example-skip-test.c > > > > I don't know if this test is useful for a user of KUnit. Given it's not > > testing KUnit functionality (I see you added tests that the feature > > works in patch 1/3), but rather a demonstration and therefore dead code. > > I don't think the feature is difficult to understand from the API doc > > text. > > > > Instead, would it be more helpful to add something to > > Documentation/dev-tools/kunit? Or perhaps just add something to > > lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c? It'd avoid introducing more Kconfig > > I'm in favor of putting it in kunit-example-test.c as well. > > But I hear there was pushback to have a non-passing test in the example? > I guess the fear is that someone will see something that doesn't say > "passed" in the example output and think something has gone wrong? > > Hence this more conservative change. > But I hope that in the absence of any replies in opposition, we can > just keep one example-test.c Maybe I misunderstood, but kunit_skip*() isn't supposed to change the test ok/fail state, right? That's the behaviour I'd expect at least. So if the test case deliberately doesn't change the state, but just skips, it should be fine in example-test.c. Thanks, -- Marco
