On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 9:19 AM André Almeida <andrealmeid@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Às 13:12 de 02/08/22, Maíra Canal escreveu:
> > Increament the example_all_expect_macros_test with the
> > KUNIT_EXPECT_ARREQ and KUNIT_EXPECT_ARRNEQ macros by creating a test
> > with array assertions.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Maíra Canal <mairacanal@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c | 7 +++++++
> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c b/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c
> > index f8fe582c9e36..fc81a45d9cbc 100644
> > --- a/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c
> > +++ b/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c
> > @@ -86,6 +86,9 @@ static void example_mark_skipped_test(struct kunit *test)
> > */
> > static void example_all_expect_macros_test(struct kunit *test)
> > {
> > + const u32 array[] = { 0x0F, 0xFF };
> > + const u32 expected[] = { 0x1F, 0xFF };
Given the distance between the definition and their use, perhaps we
can give them clearer names.
E.g. array + diff_array, or array1 + array2, etc.
I think something to indicate they're arrays and that they're different.
The current name `expected` is a bit unclear.
> > +
> > /* Boolean assertions */
> > KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, true);
> > KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, false);
> > @@ -109,6 +112,10 @@ static void example_all_expect_macros_test(struct kunit *test)
> > KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, "hi", "hi");
> > KUNIT_EXPECT_STRNEQ(test, "hi", "bye");
> >
> > + /* Array assertions */
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_ARREQ(test, expected, expected, 2);
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_ARRNEQ(test, array, expected, 2);
>
> ARRAY_SIZE() is usually better than constants is this case.
Note: that's actually incorrect!
Ah right, this was the other blocker I had in mind.
I wasn't sure how we'd handle the size parameter.
Users might think ARRAY_SIZE() is fine and copy-paste it.
But the size parameter is in units of bytes, not array elements!
If the element types are not 1 byte, it'll silently not compare the full array.
We'd want people to use
KUNIT_EXPECT_ARREQ(test, expected, expected, sizeof(expected));
But this doesn't work for `u32 *array`, since it'll silently just
compare 1 byte if people get them mixed up.
I don't know how we make a maximally fool-proof version of this macro :\
