On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 at 04:51, Rae Moar <rmoar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 12:01 PM Michal Wajdeczko > <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Use of parameterized testing is documented [1] but such use case > > is not present in demo kunit test. Add small subtest for that. > > > > [1] https://kernel.org/doc/html/latest/dev-tools/kunit/usage.html#parameterized-testing > > > > Signed-off-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Hello! > > This looks all pretty good to me! I only have one comment. In the KTAP output: > > KTAP version 1 > # Subtest: example_params_test > # example_params_test: initializing > ok 1 example value 2 > # example_params_test: initializing > ok 2 example value 1 > # example_params_test: initializing > ok 3 example value 0 # SKIP unsupported param value > # example_params_test: pass:2 fail:0 skip:1 total:3 > ok 6 example_params_test > > The init method is causing the "# example_params_test: initializing" > to print lines for each case. However, since they are not inline with > the correct indentation and they don't include helpful test data, I > would consider finding a way to remove these. I think this is probably a problem for the kunit_log() infrastructure, rather than init functions in general. I'm not worried about them in relation to this particular test. > > We could consider removing these lines from the test suite as a whole. > However, they are helpful in that they show how to use the init > function. Maybe check if the test is a param test case in the init > function itself? Let me know what you think. > I'd rather keep these as-is: the idea is to have a very simple example of an init function, and complicating further by checking which test is running is needless complexity, IMO. -- David
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
