On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 8:26 PM David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 1, 2022 at 8:26 AM 'Daniel Latypov' via KUnit Development
> <kunit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Context:
> > Currently this macro's name, KUNIT_ASSERTION conflicts with the name of
> > an enum whose values are {KUNIT_EXPECTATION, KUNIT_ASSERTION}.
> >
> > It's hard to think of a better name for the enum, so rename this macro.
> > It's also a bit strange that the macro might do nothing depending on the
> > boolean argument `pass`. Why not have callers check themselves?
> >
> > This patch:
> > Moves the pass/fail checking into the callers of KUNIT_ASSERTION, so now
> > we only call it when the check has failed.
> > Then we rename the macro the _KUNIT_FAILED() to reflect the new
> > semantics.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
>
> Looks good to me. I can't say the name _KUNIT_FAILED() feels perfect
> to me, but I can't think of anything better, either. We've not used a
> leading underscore for internal macros much thus far, as well, though
> I've no personal objections to starting.
Yeah, I also didn't add a leading underscore on the new
KUNIT_INIT_ASSERT() macro elsewhere in this series.
So I'm not necessarily proposing that we should start doing so here.
It feels like that KUNIT_FAILED is far too similar to the enum
55 enum kunit_status {
56 KUNIT_SUCCESS,
57 KUNIT_FAILURE,
58 KUNIT_SKIPPED,
59 };
I.e. we'd be remove one naming conflict between a macro and enum, but
basically introducing a new one in its place :P
Tbh, I was originally going to have this patch just be
s/KUNIT_ASSERTION()/_KUNIT_ASSERTION() to reduce the conflict.
But I figured we could reduce the number of arguments to the macro
(drop `pass`) and have a reason to give it a different name.
I'm also not entirely convinced about _KUNIT_FAILED(), but I haven't
had any significantly better ideas since I sent the RFC in May.
Daniel
