-----Original Message----- From: Brendan Higgins
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 10:52 AM Tim.Bird@sony.com wrote:
It might be of interest to the automated testing mailing list too ? (Tim?)
I think this is interesting to groups doing automated testing of the kernel (including myself) as another set of tests to run. Right now I don't see it as having any special attributes related to automation. But I could be
wrong.
Pardon my ignorance, but by automated testing you mean a CI server with presubmits, nightlys, and things of the sort?
Yes.
If that's the case, KUnit could be helpful because of the low resource cost in running them and the speed at which they run.
True.
There are some other features we would like to add which would help with that goal as well like test isolation. We actually have a presubmit server internally for running KUnit tests that can usually respond to patches with test results within a couple minutes. Would something like that be interesting?
I think the code and architecture of the software that handles presubmit, mail-list scanning, notifications, etc. would be of interest. But KUnit features themselves (macro definitions, mocking vs. faking, etc.) would not. I only say that in the context of CC-ing the automated testing list on the patch set. Of course the KUnit features are interesting by themselves for testers doing unit testing. -- Tim