On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 1:58 PM Michal Wajdeczko
<michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> In case of parameterized tests we are not providing a test plan
> so we can't detect if any result is missing.
>
> Count available params using the same generator as during a test
> execution
>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Rae Moar <rmoar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> lib/kunit/test.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/lib/kunit/test.c b/lib/kunit/test.c
> index 43c3efc286e4..55eabb324f39 100644
> --- a/lib/kunit/test.c
> +++ b/lib/kunit/test.c
> @@ -540,6 +540,20 @@ static void kunit_accumulate_stats(struct kunit_result_stats *total,
> total->total += add.total;
> }
>
> +static size_t count_test_case_params(struct kunit_case *test_case)
> +{
> + char param_desc[KUNIT_PARAM_DESC_SIZE];
> + const void *param_value = NULL;
> + size_t num = 0;
> +
> + if (test_case->generate_params)
> + while ((param_value = test_case->generate_params(param_value,
> + param_desc)))
> + num++;
> +
> + return num;
> +}
> +
Hello!
This change largely looks good to me. However, I am not 100 percent
confident that the function to generate parameters always produces the
same output (or same number of test cases). I would be interested in
David's opinion on this.
Otherwise it seems to work well!
Thanks!
-Rae
> int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite)
> {
> char param_desc[KUNIT_PARAM_DESC_SIZE];
> @@ -585,6 +599,8 @@ int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite)
> test_case->status = KUNIT_SKIPPED;
> kunit_log_indent(KERN_INFO, &test, "KTAP version 1\n");
> kunit_log_indent(KERN_INFO, &test, "# Subtest: %s", test_case->name);
> + kunit_log_indent(KERN_INFO, &test, "1..%zd\n",
> + count_test_case_params(test_case));
>
> while (test.param_value) {
> kunit_run_case_catch_errors(suite, test_case, &test);
> --
> 2.25.1
>
