On Wed, 17 May 2023 at 19:20, Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > There is no need use opaque test_or_suite pointer and is_test flag > as we don't use anything from the suite struct. Always expect test > pointer and use NULL as indication that provided results are from > the suite so we can treat them differently. > > Since results could be from nested tests, like parameterized tests, > add explicit level parameter to properly indent output messages and > thus allow to reuse this function from other places. > > While around, remove small code duplication near skip directive. > > Signed-off-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Rae Moar <rmoar@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- This looks good to me, thanks. As a note, this seems to trigger a bug in checkpatch.pl: substr outside of string at ./scripts/checkpatch.pl line 1664. Use of uninitialized value $fmt in substitution (s///) at ./scripts/checkpatch.pl line 6899. Use of uninitialized value $fmt in pattern match (m//) at ./scripts/checkpatch.pl line 6901. I haven't dug into that myself, yet (it's something to do with format strings), but I don't think we need to change this patch to work around it. Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx> Cheers, -- David > include/kunit/test.h | 1 + > lib/kunit/test.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- > 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h > index 3028a1a3fcad..d717fc055e06 100644 > --- a/include/kunit/test.h > +++ b/include/kunit/test.h > @@ -47,6 +47,7 @@ struct kunit; > * sub-subtest. See the "Subtests" section in > * https://node-tap.org/tap-protocol/ > */ > +#define KUNIT_INDENT_LEN 4 > #define KUNIT_SUBTEST_INDENT " " > #define KUNIT_SUBSUBTEST_INDENT " " > > diff --git a/lib/kunit/test.c b/lib/kunit/test.c > index af48d0761d26..6bc92ced82ee 100644 > --- a/lib/kunit/test.c > +++ b/lib/kunit/test.c > @@ -185,16 +185,28 @@ static void kunit_print_suite_start(struct kunit_suite *suite) > kunit_suite_num_test_cases(suite)); > } > > -static void kunit_print_ok_not_ok(void *test_or_suite, > - bool is_test, > +/* Currently supported test levels */ > +enum { > + KUNIT_LEVEL_SUITE = 0, > + KUNIT_LEVEL_CASE, > + KUNIT_LEVEL_CASE_PARAM, > +}; > + > +static void kunit_print_ok_not_ok(struct kunit *test, > + unsigned int test_level, > enum kunit_status status, > size_t test_number, > const char *description, > const char *directive) > { > - struct kunit_suite *suite = is_test ? NULL : test_or_suite; > - struct kunit *test = is_test ? test_or_suite : NULL; > const char *directive_header = (status == KUNIT_SKIPPED) ? " # SKIP " : ""; > + const char *directive_body = (status == KUNIT_SKIPPED) ? directive : ""; > + > + /* > + * When test is NULL assume that results are from the suite > + * and today suite results are expected at level 0 only. > + */ > + WARN(!test && test_level, "suite test level can't be %u!\n", test_level); > > /* > * We do not log the test suite results as doing so would > @@ -203,17 +215,18 @@ static void kunit_print_ok_not_ok(void *test_or_suite, > * separately seq_printf() the suite results for the debugfs > * representation. > */ > - if (suite) > + if (!test) > pr_info("%s %zd %s%s%s\n", > kunit_status_to_ok_not_ok(status), > test_number, description, directive_header, > - (status == KUNIT_SKIPPED) ? directive : ""); > + directive_body); > else > kunit_log(KERN_INFO, test, > - KUNIT_SUBTEST_INDENT "%s %zd %s%s%s", > + "%*s%s %zd %s%s%s", > + KUNIT_INDENT_LEN * test_level, "", > kunit_status_to_ok_not_ok(status), > test_number, description, directive_header, > - (status == KUNIT_SKIPPED) ? directive : ""); > + directive_body); > } > > enum kunit_status kunit_suite_has_succeeded(struct kunit_suite *suite) > @@ -239,7 +252,7 @@ static size_t kunit_suite_counter = 1; > > static void kunit_print_suite_end(struct kunit_suite *suite) > { > - kunit_print_ok_not_ok((void *)suite, false, > + kunit_print_ok_not_ok(NULL, KUNIT_LEVEL_SUITE, > kunit_suite_has_succeeded(suite), > kunit_suite_counter++, > suite->name, > @@ -625,13 +638,11 @@ int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite) > "param-%d", test.param_index); > } > > - kunit_log(KERN_INFO, &test, > - KUNIT_SUBTEST_INDENT KUNIT_SUBTEST_INDENT > - "%s %d %s%s%s", > - kunit_status_to_ok_not_ok(test.status), > - test.param_index + 1, param_desc, > - test.status == KUNIT_SKIPPED ? " # SKIP " : "", > - test.status == KUNIT_SKIPPED ? test.status_comment : ""); > + kunit_print_ok_not_ok(&test, KUNIT_LEVEL_CASE_PARAM, > + test.status, > + test.param_index + 1, > + param_desc, > + test.status_comment); > > /* Get next param. */ > param_desc[0] = '\0'; > @@ -645,7 +656,7 @@ int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite) > > kunit_print_test_stats(&test, param_stats); > > - kunit_print_ok_not_ok(&test, true, test_case->status, > + kunit_print_ok_not_ok(&test, KUNIT_LEVEL_CASE, test_case->status, > kunit_test_case_num(suite, test_case), > test_case->name, > test.status_comment); > -- > 2.25.1 > > -- > 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/20230517111816.984-4-michal.wajdeczko%40intel.com.
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
