On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 9:23 AM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Currently, these macros are only really documented near the bottom of > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/dev-tools/kunit/api/test.html#c.KUNIT_FAIL. > > E.g. it's likely someone might just not realize that > KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ() exists and instead use KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(strcmp()) > or similar. > > This can also serve as a basic smoketest that the KUnit assert machinery > still works for all the macros. > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- I think this is a great idea. I will note that this definitely isn't a full test _of_ the assertion macros (in that it only exercises the success case), so keeping it as an example is probably best. A few possible ideas below, but I'm happy enough with this as-is regardless. Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx> > lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c b/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c > index 51099b0ca29c..182a64c12541 100644 > --- a/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c > +++ b/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c > @@ -69,6 +69,51 @@ static void example_mark_skipped_test(struct kunit *test) > /* This line should run */ > kunit_info(test, "You should see this line."); > } > + > +/* > + * This test shows off all the KUNIT_EXPECT macros. > + */ > +static void example_all_expect_macros_test(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, true); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, false); _Maybe_ it's worth having a comment for each of these groups ('boolean assertions', 'integer assertions', 'pointer assertions', etc)? > + > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 1, 1); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_GE(test, 1, 1); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_LE(test, 1, 1); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_NE(test, 1, 0); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_GT(test, 1, 0); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_LT(test, 0, 1); > + > + KUNIT_EXPECT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, test); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, NULL, NULL); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_NE(test, test, NULL); > + > + KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, "hi", "hi"); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_STRNEQ(test, "hi", "bye"); > + > + /* > + * There are also _MSG variants of all of the above that let you include > + * additional text on failure. > + */ There are also the ASSERT vs EXPECT variations. While it may be excessive to also include all of these, particularly in an example, it might be worth mentioning them in a comment somewhere? Alternatively, if this is bloating the example too much, we could have only one example each of the ASSERT and _MSG variants. > + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE_MSG(test, true, "msg"); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE_MSG(test, false, "msg"); Part of me feels that a better message than "msg" would be nice to have here, but I can't think of a good one. Maybe (particularly for the less obvious integer/string/pointer macros below), having a description of what's being asserted? > + > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, 1, 1, "msg"); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_GE_MSG(test, 1, 1, "msg"); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_LE_MSG(test, 1, 1, "msg"); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_NE_MSG(test, 1, 0, "msg"); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_GT_MSG(test, 1, 0, "msg"); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_LT_MSG(test, 0, 1, "msg"); > + > + KUNIT_EXPECT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL_MSG(test, test, "msg"); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ_MSG(test, NULL, NULL, "msg"); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_NE_MSG(test, test, NULL, "msg"); > + > + KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ_MSG(test, "hi", "hi", "msg"); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_STRNEQ_MSG(test, "hi", "bye", "msg"); > +} > + > /* > * Here we make a list of all the test cases we want to add to the test suite > * below. > @@ -83,6 +128,7 @@ static struct kunit_case example_test_cases[] = { > KUNIT_CASE(example_simple_test), > KUNIT_CASE(example_skip_test), > KUNIT_CASE(example_mark_skipped_test), > + KUNIT_CASE(example_all_expect_macros_test), > {} > }; > > -- > 2.34.1.575.g55b058a8bb-goog >
