On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 6:21 PM 'Daniel Latypov' via KUnit Development
<kunit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I've got a few minor comments below, but this otherwise looks good.
> I like the idea of testing knuit_fail_current_test().
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 3:05 PM Rae Moar <rmoar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > +static void kunit_current_kunit_test_field(struct kunit *test)
> > +{
> > + struct kunit *current_test;
> > +
> > + /* Check to ensure the result of current->kunit_test
> > + * is equivalent to current test.
> > + */
> > + current_test = current->kunit_test;
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, current_test);
>
> Perhaps we can combine this and the next test case down to
> static void kunit_current_test(struct kunit *test) {
> /* There are two different ways of getting the current test */
> KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, current->kunit_test);
> KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, kunit_get_current_test());
> }
> ?
Hi Daniel!
Yes, I would be happy to combine these for v2. I might want to alter
that proposed comment slightly. "Two different ways" seems a bit
unclear to me. Maybe: Check results of both current->kunit_test and
kunit_get_current_test() are equivalent to current test. What do you
think? I might send out a v2 with a proposed comment.
>
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void kunit_current_get_current_test(struct kunit *test)
> > +{
> > + struct kunit *current_test1, *current_test2;
> > +
> > + /* Check to ensure the result of kunit_get_current_test()
> > + * is equivalent to current test.
> > + */
> > + current_test1 = kunit_get_current_test();
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, current_test1);
> > +
> > + /* Check to ensure the result of kunit_get_current_test()
> > + * is equivalent to current->kunit_test.
> > + */
> > + current_test2 = current->kunit_test;
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, current_test1, current_test2);
>
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void kunit_current_fail_current_test(struct kunit *test)
> > +{
> > + struct kunit fake;
> > +
> > + /* Initialize fake test and set as current->kunit_test. */
>
> Nit: I think the code is self-explanatory enough that we can drop this comment.
>
I agree the "initialize fake test" comment is self-explanatory. But if
we keep the comment regarding resetting the current test, I think we
should mark when we set the test as a fake with a comment as well.
> > + kunit_init_test(&fake, "fake test", NULL);
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake.status, KUNIT_SUCCESS);
> > + current->kunit_test = &fake;
> > +
> > + /* Fail current test and expect status of fake test to be failed. */
>
> Nit: I think this comment could also be dropped or maybe shortened to
> kunit_fail_current_test("This should make `fake` fail");
>
This first option seems good to me.
> or
> /* Now kunit_fail_current_test() should modify `fake`, not `test` */
> kunit_fail_current_test("This should make `fake` fail");
>
> > + kunit_fail_current_test("This test is supposed to fail.");
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fake.status, (enum kunit_status)KUNIT_FAILURE);
> > +
>
> Hmm, should we try calling
> kunit_cleanup(&fake);
> ?
>
> Right now this does resource cleanups, but we might have other state
> to cleanup for our `fake` test object in the future.
>
I would be fine to add this here if it is wanted.
Thanks Daniel for the comments!
Rae
> Daniel
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "KUnit Development" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kunit-dev+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kunit-dev/CAGS_qxqNwVcymkG6-8Kv72oZc9aDqjFjBBmjr%2Bf%2BmOVKT1bGvA%40mail.gmail.com.
