On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 10:32 AM Brendan Higgins brendanhiggins@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 1:37 PM Daniel Latypov dlatypov@google.com wrote:
usage.rst goes into a detailed about faking out classes, but currently lacks wording about how one might idiomatically test a range of inputs.
Give an example of how one might test a hash function via macros/helper funcs and a table-driven test and very briefly discuss pros and cons.
Also highlight the KUNIT_EXPECT_*_MSG() variants (that aren't mentioned elsewhere [1]) which are particularly useful in these situations.
It is also criminally underused at the moment, only appearing in 2 tests (both written by people involved in KUnit).
[1] not even on https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/dev-tools/kunit/api/test.html
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov dlatypov@google.com
Aside from the minor comment I made below, I like the patch; it is a definite improvement, but I think the test you wrote that ultimately led to this documentation fix had more information in it than this documentation. I think it only contains the pattern that you outlined here, but I think it does include some other best practices. Maybe we should add some more documentation patches with more code examples in the future?
Anyway, like I said, I think this patch in and of itself looks pretty good.
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins brendanhiggins@google.com
Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 66 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst index 62142a47488c..317390df2b96 100644 --- a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst +++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst @@ -451,6 +451,72 @@ We can now use it to test ``struct eeprom_buffer``: destroy_eeprom_buffer(ctx->eeprom_buffer); }
+Testing various inputs +----------------------
Since this, by my count, the second test pattern that we are introducing here, could we maybe call that out with a subheading or a new section or something? It would be nice if we could sort of build up a cookbook of testing patterns.
Good point, I noticed now the "Organization of this document" section would need to be updated. Perhaps something like
-This document is organized into two main sections: Testing and Isolating -Behavior. The first covers what unit tests are and how to use KUnit to write -them. The second covers how to use KUnit to isolate code and make it possible -to unit test code that was otherwise un-unit-testable. +This document is organized into two main sections: Testing and Common Patterns. +The first covers what unit tests are and how to use KUnit to write them. The +second covers common testing patterns, e.g. how to isolate code and make it +possible to unit test code that was otherwise un-unit-testable.
I'll send out a V2 shortly, changing the example per David's suggestion and with the above.
+Testing just a few inputs might not be enough to have confidence that the code +works correctly, e.g. for a hash function.
+In such cases, it can be helpful to have a helper macro or function, e.g. this +fictitious example for ``md5sum(1)``
+.. code-block:: c
/* Note: the cast is to satisfy overly strict type-checking. */#define TEST_MD5(in, want) \md5sum(in, out); \KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ_MSG(test, (char *)out, want, "md5sum(%s)", in);char out[16];TEST_MD5("hello world", "5eb63bbbe01eeed093cb22bb8f5acdc3");TEST_MD5("hello world!", "fc3ff98e8c6a0d3087d515c0473f8677");+Note the use of ``KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ_MSG`` to give more context when it fails +and make it easier to track down. (Yes, in this example, ``want`` is likely +going to be unique enough on its own).
+The ``_MSG`` variants are even more useful when the same expectation is called +multiple times (in a loop or helper function) and thus the line number isn't +enough to identify what failed, like below.
+In some cases, it can be helpful to write a *table-driven test* instead, e.g.
+.. code-block:: c
int i;char out[16];struct md5_test_case {const char *str;const char *md5;};struct md5_test_case cases[] = {{.str = "hello world",.md5 = "5eb63bbbe01eeed093cb22bb8f5acdc3",},{.str = "hello world!",.md5 = "fc3ff98e8c6a0d3087d515c0473f8677",},};for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(cases); ++i) {md5sum(cases[i].str, out);KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ_MSG(test, (char *)out, cases[i].md5,"md5sum(%s)", cases[i].str);}+There's more boilerplate involved, but it can:
+* be more readable when there are multiple inputs/outputs thanks to field names,
- E.g. see ``fs/ext4/inode-test.c`` for an example of both.
+* reduce duplication if test cases can be shared across multiple tests.
- E.g. if we had a magical ``undo_md5sum`` function, we could reuse ``cases``.
.. _kunit-on-non-uml:
KUnit on non-UML architectures
base-commit: 77c8473edf7f7664137f555cfcdc8c460bbd947d
2.29.1.341.ge80a0c044ae-goog