On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 17:53:41 +0200 Petr Machata wrote: > > +def ksft_ge(a, b, comment=""): > > + global KSFT_RESULT > > + if a < b: > > + KSFT_RESULT = False > > Hmm, instead of this global KSFT_RESULT business, have you considered > adding and raising an XsftFailEx, like for the other outcomes? We need > to use KSFT_RESULT-like approach in bash tests, because, well, bash. > > Doing it all through exceptions likely requires consistent use of > context managers for resource clean-up. But if we do, we'll get > guaranteed cleanups as well. I see that you use __del__ and explicit > "finally: del cfg" later on, which is exactly the sort of lifetime > management boilerplate that context managers encapsulate. > > This stuff is going to get cut'n'pasted around, and I worry we'll end up > with a mess of mutable globals and forgotten cleanups if the right > patterns are not introduced early on. I wanted to support the semantics which the C kselftest harness has, by which I mean EXPECT and ASSERT. The helpers don't raise, just record the failure and keep going. ASSERT semantics are provided by the exceptions. I thought it may be easier to follow and write correct code if we raise ASSERTS explicitly in the test, rather than in the helpers. I mean - if the programmer has to type in "raise" they are more likely to realize they need to also add cleanup. But TBH I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise, I couldn't find a strong reason to do it one way or the other. I have tried to integrate with unittest and that wasn't great (I have one huge test I need to port back now). I don't know if pytest is better, but I decided that we should probably roll our own. What "our own" exactly is I don't have strong opinion.
