On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 3:03 PM Luis Chamberlain email@example.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 01:02:55AM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 5:01 PM Luis Chamberlain firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 01:26:08AM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
create mode 100644 tools/testing/kunit/test_data/test_is_test_passed-all_passed.log create mode 100644 tools/testing/kunit/test_data/test_is_test_passed-crash.log create mode 100644 tools/testing/kunit/test_data/test_is_test_passed-failure.log create mode 100644 tools/testing/kunit/test_data/test_is_test_passed-no_tests_run.log create mode 100644 tools/testing/kunit/test_data/test_output_isolated_correctly.log create mode 100644 tools/testing/kunit/test_data/test_read_from_file.kconfig
Why are these being added upstream? The commit log does not explain this.
Oh sorry, those are for testing purposes. I thought that was clear from being in the test_data directory. I will reference it in the commit log in the next revision.
Still, I don't get it. They seem to be results from a prior run. Why do we need them for testing purposes?
Those logs are the raw output from UML with KUnit installed. They are for testing kunit_tool, the Python scripts added in this commit. One of the things that kunit_tool does is parses the results output by UML, extracts the KUnit data, and presents it in a user friendly manner.
I added these logs so I could test that kunit_tool parses certain kinds of output correctly. For example, I want to know that it parses a test failure correctly and includes the appropriate context. So I have a log from a unit test that failed, and I have a test (a Python test that is also in this commit) that tests whether kunit_tool can parse the log correctly.
Does that make sense?