On Tue, 18 Jul 2023 at 13:28, Miguel Ojeda ojeda@kernel.org wrote:
v1: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/20230614180837.630180-1-ojeda@kernel.... v2:
Rebased on top of v6.5-rc1, which requires a change from `kunit_do_failed_assertion` to `__kunit_do_failed_assertion` (since the former became a macro) and the addition of a call to `__kunit_abort` (since previously the call was done by the old function which we cannot use anymore since it is a macro). (David)
Added prerequisite patch to KUnit header to include `stddef.h` to support the `KUNIT=y` case. (Reported by Boqun)
Added comment on the purpose of `trait FromErrno`. (Martin asked about it)
Simplify code to use `std::fs::write` instead of `write!`, which improves code size too. (Suggested by Alice)
Fix copy-paste type in docs from "error" to "info" and, to make it proper English, copy the `printk` docs style, i.e. from "info" to "info-level message" -- and same for the "error" one. (Miguel)
Swap `FILE` and `LINE` `static`s to keep the same order as done elsewhere. (Miguel)
Rename config option from `RUST_KERNEL_KUNIT_TEST` to `RUST_KERNEL_DOCTESTS` (and update its title), so that we can use the former for the "normal" (i.e. non-doctests, e.g. `#[test]` ones) tests in the future. (David)
Follow the syntax proposed for declaring test metadata in the KTAP v2 spec, which may also get used for the KUnit test attributes API.
Thus, instead of "# Doctest from line {line}", use "# {test_name}.location: {file}.{line}", which ideally will allow to migrate to a KUnit attribute later.
This is done in all cases, i.e. when the tests succeeds, because it may be useful for users running KUnit manually, or when passing `--raw_output` to `kunit.py`. (David)
David: I used "location" instead of your suggested "line" alone, in order to have both in a single line, which looked nice and closer to the "ASSERTION FAILURE" case/line, since now we do have the original file (please see below).
I like "location" better, personally. The attributes work is still ongoing, and while there's some benefit to having "file" and "line" separate (it could potentially simplify some implementation on the C side), we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
Figure out the original line. This is done by deploying an anchor so that the difference in lines between the beginning of the test and the assert, in the generated file, can be computed. Then, we offset the line number of the original test, which is given by `rustdoc`. (developed by Boqun)
Figure out the original file. This is done by walking the filesystem, checking directory prefixes to reduce the amount of combinations to check, and it is only done once per file (rather than per test).
Ambiguities are detected and reported. It does limit the filenames (module names) we can use, but it is unlikely we will hit it soon and this should be temporary anyway until `rustdoc` provides us with the real path. (Miguel)
Tested with both in-tree and `O=` builds, but I would appreciate extra testing on this one, including via the `kunit.py` script.
This seems to be working well on the existing cases under kunit.py here. I'll continue to play with it, but no worries on my end thus far.
The three last items combined means that we now see this output even for successful cases:
# rust_doctest_kernel_sync_locked_by_rs_0.location: rust/kernel/sync/locked_by.rs:28 ok 53 rust_doctest_kernel_sync_locked_by_rs_0Which basically gives the user all the information they need to go back to the source code of the doctest, while keeping them fairly stable for bisection, and while avoiding to require users to write test names manually. (David + Boqun + Miguel)
David: from what I saw in v2 of the RFC for the test attributes API, the syntax still contains the test name when it is not a suite, so I followed that, but if you prefer to omit it, please feel free to do so (for me either way it is fine, and if this is the expected attribute syntax, I guess it is worth to follow it to make migration easier later on):
# location: rust/kernel/sync/locked_by.rs:28 ok 53 rust_doctest_kernel_sync_locked_by_rs_0
Thanks: while we're still arguing a bit about exactly what the format of these will look like in the KUnit/KTAP attributes spec/patches, what you've used matches what we've been proposing so far.
Let's stick with <test name>.location for now, and change it if needed when the attributes spec is finalised.
- Collected `Reviewed-by`s and `Tested-by`s, except for the main commit due to the substantial changes.
Miguel Ojeda (7): kunit: test-bug.h: include `stddef.h` for `NULL` rust: init: make doctests compilable/testable rust: str: make doctests compilable/testable rust: sync: make doctests compilable/testable rust: types: make doctests compilable/testable rust: support running Rust documentation tests as KUnit ones MAINTAINERS: add Rust KUnit files to the KUnit entry
These are all (still) looking pretty good to me. If there are no objections, I'd like to take these into kselftest/kunit as-is and if we need to change anything (e.g. for consistency with attributes when they land), do that as a follow-up.
Thanks again, Miguel, for all the work getting this going!
Cheers, -- David
MAINTAINERS | 2 + include/kunit/test-bug.h | 2 + lib/Kconfig.debug | 13 ++ rust/.gitignore | 2 + rust/Makefile | 29 ++++ rust/bindings/bindings_helper.h | 1 + rust/helpers.c | 7 + rust/kernel/init.rs | 26 +-- rust/kernel/kunit.rs | 163 +++++++++++++++++++ rust/kernel/lib.rs | 2 + rust/kernel/str.rs | 4 +- rust/kernel/sync/arc.rs | 9 +- rust/kernel/sync/lock/mutex.rs | 1 + rust/kernel/sync/lock/spinlock.rs | 1 + rust/kernel/types.rs | 6 +- scripts/.gitignore | 2 + scripts/Makefile | 4 + scripts/rustdoc_test_builder.rs | 72 +++++++++ scripts/rustdoc_test_gen.rs | 260 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 19 files changed, 591 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) create mode 100644 rust/kernel/kunit.rs create mode 100644 scripts/rustdoc_test_builder.rs create mode 100644 scripts/rustdoc_test_gen.rs
base-commit: 06c2afb862f9da8dc5efa4b6076a0e48c3fbaaa5
2.41.0
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "KUnit Development" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kunit-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kunit-dev/20230718052752.1045248-1-ojeda%4....