Re: [RFC v2 01/14] kunit: test: add KUnit test runner core

On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 11:44 AM Shuah Khan shuah@kernel.org wrote:

On 10/23/2018 05:57 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:

<snip>

...

• • Example:
• • .. code-block:: c
• • void add_test_basic(struct test *test)
• • {

• •       TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, 1, add(1, 0));
    

• •       TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, 2, add(1, 1));
    

• •       TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, add(-1, 1));
    

• •       TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, INT_MAX, add(0, INT_MAX));
    

• •       TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, -1, add(INT_MAX, INT_MIN));
    

• • }
• • static struct test_case example_test_cases[] = {

• •       TEST_CASE(add_test_basic),
    

• •       {},
    

• • };
• */

+struct test_case {

• void (*run_case)(struct test *test);
  

• const char name[256];
  

• /* private: internal use only. */
  

• bool success;
  

+};

Introducing a prefix kunit_* might be a good idea for the API. This comment applies to the rest of patches as well.

What about kunit_* instead of test_* and kmock_* instead of mock_*? Does that seem reasonable?