On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 11:14:20AM -0700, Jeff Xu wrote: > Hi Lorenzo and Muhammad > > Reviving this thread since the merging window is closed and we have > more time to review /work on this code in the next few weeks. > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 3:50 PM Jeff Xu <jeffxu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi Lorenzo > > > > On Sat, Sep 7, 2024 at 12:28 PM Lorenzo Stoakes > > <lorenzo.stoakes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I also suggest we figure out this FAIL_TEST_IF_FALSE() thing at this point > > > too - I may be missing something, but I cannot for the life me understand > > > why we have to assert negations only, and other self tests do not do this. > > > > > My most test-infra related comments comes from Muhammad Usama Anjum > > (added into this email), e.g. assert is not recommended.[1] , > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/148fc789-3c03-4490-a653-6a4e58f336b6@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > Specifically regarding Lorenzo's comments about FAIL_TEST_IF_FALSE > > Muhammad Usama Anjum doesn't want assert being used in selftest (see > [1] above), and I quote: > "We don't want to terminate the test if one test fails because of assert. We > want the sub-tests to get executed in-dependent of other tests. > > ksft_test_result(condition, fmt, ...); > ksft_test_result_pass(fmt, ...);" > > FAIL_TEST_IF_FALSE is a wrapper for ksft_test_result macro, and > replacement of assert. > > Please let me know if you have questions on this and Muhammad might > also help to clarify the requirement if needed. > > Thanks > -Jeff Right this is about not failing the test i.e. equivalent of an expect rather than an assert, which makes sense. What I'm saying is we should have something more like EXPECT_TRUE() EXPECT_FALSE() etc. Which would avoid these confusing FAIL_TEST_IF_FALSE(!expr) Things. Hopefully that's clear? Thanks!
