27 Apr
2022
27 Apr
'22
3:06 a.m.
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 8:56 PM David Gow davidgow@google.com wrote:
static size_t kunit_suite_counter = 1;
-static void kunit_print_suite_end(struct kunit_suite *suite) +static void kunit_print_suite_end(struct kunit_suite *suite, int init_err)
A part of me feels that it'd be nicer to have the init_err be part of struct kunit_suite, and have kunit_suite_has_succeeded() take it into account. It could go either way, though -- WDYT?
Yeah, passing it around as a parameter felt a bit icky. But I think adding it in as a field feels worse.
Another thought: perhaps have this function take a `kunit_status` parameter instead? Moving the ?: expression below out into the caller isn't that bad, imo.
{
enum kunit_status status =init_err ? KUNIT_FAILURE : kunit_suite_has_succeeded(suite);