On 8/2/22 15:15, 'Daniel Latypov' via KUnit Development wrote:
On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 9:19 AM André Almeida andrealmeid@riseup.net wrote:
Às 13:12 de 02/08/22, Maíra Canal escreveu:
Increament the example_all_expect_macros_test with the KUNIT_EXPECT_ARREQ and KUNIT_EXPECT_ARRNEQ macros by creating a test with array assertions.
Signed-off-by: Maíra Canal mairacanal@riseup.net
lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c | 7 +++++++ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
diff --git a/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c b/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c index f8fe582c9e36..fc81a45d9cbc 100644 --- a/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c +++ b/lib/kunit/kunit-example-test.c @@ -86,6 +86,9 @@ static void example_mark_skipped_test(struct kunit *test) */ static void example_all_expect_macros_test(struct kunit *test) {
const u32 array[] = { 0x0F, 0xFF };const u32 expected[] = { 0x1F, 0xFF };Given the distance between the definition and their use, perhaps we can give them clearer names. E.g. array + diff_array, or array1 + array2, etc.
I think something to indicate they're arrays and that they're different. The current name `expected` is a bit unclear.
Thank you for the note, I'll address it at v2.
/* Boolean assertions */ KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, true); KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, false);@@ -109,6 +112,10 @@ static void example_all_expect_macros_test(struct kunit *test) KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, "hi", "hi"); KUNIT_EXPECT_STRNEQ(test, "hi", "bye");
/* Array assertions */KUNIT_EXPECT_ARREQ(test, expected, expected, 2);KUNIT_EXPECT_ARRNEQ(test, array, expected, 2);ARRAY_SIZE() is usually better than constants is this case.
Note: that's actually incorrect!
Yep, that's my bad!
Ah right, this was the other blocker I had in mind. I wasn't sure how we'd handle the size parameter.
Users might think ARRAY_SIZE() is fine and copy-paste it. But the size parameter is in units of bytes, not array elements! If the element types are not 1 byte, it'll silently not compare the full array.
We'd want people to use KUNIT_EXPECT_ARREQ(test, expected, expected, sizeof(expected));
But this doesn't work for `u32 *array`, since it'll silently just compare 1 byte if people get them mixed up.
I don't know how we make a maximally fool-proof version of this macro :\
This is a hard one also. I believe that use KUNIT_EXPECT_ARREQ(test, expected, expected, sizeof(expected)); is more compliant to the memcpy/memset/memcmp signature. Moreover, this problem also occur for the KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, memcmp(expected, expected, sizeof(expected)), 0);
I believe that the number of array elements will make it easier for users to avoid mistakes.
I'll change it internally for size_bytes = (size) * sizeof((left)[0]) on v2.
Best Regards, - Maíra Canal