When one parameter of a parameterised test failed, its failure would be propagated to the overall test, but not to the suite result (unless it was the last parameter).
This is because test_case->success was being reset to the test->success result after each parameter was used, so a failing test's result would be overwritten by a non-failing result. The overall test result was handled in a third variable, test_result, but this was disacarded after the status line was printed.
Instead, just propagate the result after each parameter run.
Signed-off-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com Fixes: fadb08e7c750 ("kunit: Support for Parameterized Testing") ---
This is fixing quite a serious bug where some test suites would appear to succeed even if some of their component tests failed. It'd be nice to get this into kunit-fixes ASAP.
(This will require a rework of some of the skip tests work, for which I'll send out a new version soon.)
Cheers, -- David
lib/kunit/test.c | 7 +++---- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/kunit/test.c b/lib/kunit/test.c index 2f6cc0123232..17973a4a44c2 100644 --- a/lib/kunit/test.c +++ b/lib/kunit/test.c @@ -376,7 +376,7 @@ static void kunit_run_case_catch_errors(struct kunit_suite *suite, context.test_case = test_case; kunit_try_catch_run(try_catch, &context);
- test_case->success = test->success; + test_case->success &= test->success; }
int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite) @@ -388,7 +388,7 @@ int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite)
kunit_suite_for_each_test_case(suite, test_case) { struct kunit test = { .param_value = NULL, .param_index = 0 }; - bool test_success = true; + test_case->success = true;
if (test_case->generate_params) { /* Get initial param. */ @@ -398,7 +398,6 @@ int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite)
do { kunit_run_case_catch_errors(suite, test_case, &test); - test_success &= test_case->success;
if (test_case->generate_params) { if (param_desc[0] == '\0') { @@ -420,7 +419,7 @@ int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite) } } while (test.param_value);
- kunit_print_ok_not_ok(&test, true, test_success, + kunit_print_ok_not_ok(&test, true, test_case->success, kunit_test_case_num(suite, test_case), test_case->name); }
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 at 05:57, David Gow davidgow@google.com wrote:
When one parameter of a parameterised test failed, its failure would be propagated to the overall test, but not to the suite result (unless it was the last parameter).
This is because test_case->success was being reset to the test->success result after each parameter was used, so a failing test's result would be overwritten by a non-failing result. The overall test result was handled in a third variable, test_result, but this was disacarded after the status line was printed.
Instead, just propagate the result after each parameter run.
Signed-off-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com Fixes: fadb08e7c750 ("kunit: Support for Parameterized Testing")
Reviewed-by: Marco Elver elver@google.com
Would Cc: stable be appropriate?
Thanks, -- Marco
This is fixing quite a serious bug where some test suites would appear to succeed even if some of their component tests failed. It'd be nice to get this into kunit-fixes ASAP.
(This will require a rework of some of the skip tests work, for which I'll send out a new version soon.)
Cheers, -- David
lib/kunit/test.c | 7 +++---- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/kunit/test.c b/lib/kunit/test.c index 2f6cc0123232..17973a4a44c2 100644 --- a/lib/kunit/test.c +++ b/lib/kunit/test.c @@ -376,7 +376,7 @@ static void kunit_run_case_catch_errors(struct kunit_suite *suite, context.test_case = test_case; kunit_try_catch_run(try_catch, &context);
test_case->success = test->success;
test_case->success &= test->success;}
int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite) @@ -388,7 +388,7 @@ int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite)
kunit_suite_for_each_test_case(suite, test_case) { struct kunit test = { .param_value = NULL, .param_index = 0 };
bool test_success = true;
test_case->success = true; if (test_case->generate_params) { /* Get initial param. */@@ -398,7 +398,6 @@ int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite)
do { kunit_run_case_catch_errors(suite, test_case, &test);
test_success &= test_case->success; if (test_case->generate_params) { if (param_desc[0] == '\0') {@@ -420,7 +419,7 @@ int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite) } } while (test.param_value);
kunit_print_ok_not_ok(&test, true, test_success,
kunit_print_ok_not_ok(&test, true, test_case->success, kunit_test_case_num(suite, test_case), test_case->name); }-- 2.32.0.272.g935e593368-goog
On 6/11/21 2:29 AM, Marco Elver wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 at 05:57, David Gow davidgow@google.com wrote:
When one parameter of a parameterised test failed, its failure would be propagated to the overall test, but not to the suite result (unless it was the last parameter).
This is because test_case->success was being reset to the test->success result after each parameter was used, so a failing test's result would be overwritten by a non-failing result. The overall test result was handled in a third variable, test_result, but this was disacarded after the status line was printed.
Instead, just propagate the result after each parameter run.
Signed-off-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com Fixes: fadb08e7c750 ("kunit: Support for Parameterized Testing")
Reviewed-by: Marco Elver elver@google.com
Would Cc: stable be appropriate?
Thanks, -- Marco
This is fixing quite a serious bug where some test suites would appear to succeed even if some of their component tests failed. It'd be nice to get this into kunit-fixes ASAP.
Will apply this with cc stable.
(This will require a rework of some of the skip tests work, for which I'll send out a new version soon.)
Thanks for the heads up. I will wait for new version.
thanks, -- Shuah
On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 1:44 AM Shuah Khan skhan@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On 6/11/21 2:29 AM, Marco Elver wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 at 05:57, David Gow davidgow@google.com wrote:
When one parameter of a parameterised test failed, its failure would be propagated to the overall test, but not to the suite result (unless it was the last parameter).
This is because test_case->success was being reset to the test->success result after each parameter was used, so a failing test's result would be overwritten by a non-failing result. The overall test result was handled in a third variable, test_result, but this was disacarded after the status line was printed.
Instead, just propagate the result after each parameter run.
Signed-off-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com Fixes: fadb08e7c750 ("kunit: Support for Parameterized Testing")
Reviewed-by: Marco Elver elver@google.com
Would Cc: stable be appropriate?
Thanks, -- Marco
This is fixing quite a serious bug where some test suites would appear to succeed even if some of their component tests failed. It'd be nice to get this into kunit-fixes ASAP.
Will apply this with cc stable.
Thanks!
(This will require a rework of some of the skip tests work, for which I'll send out a new version soon.)
Thanks for the heads up. I will wait for new version.
Thanks: I've sent out v4 which fixes this: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20210611070802.1318911-1-davidgow@go...
It's rebased on top of this patch, so depends on it, and also depends on the first two patches in the "Do not typecheck binary assertions" series: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20210513193204.816681-1-davidgow@goo...
thanks, -- Shuah
On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 8:57 PM David Gow davidgow@google.com wrote:
When one parameter of a parameterised test failed, its failure would be propagated to the overall test, but not to the suite result (unless it was the last parameter).
This is because test_case->success was being reset to the test->success result after each parameter was used, so a failing test's result would be overwritten by a non-failing result. The overall test result was handled in a third variable, test_result, but this was disacarded after the status line was printed.
nit: s/disacarded/discarded/g
Instead, just propagate the result after each parameter run.
Signed-off-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com Fixes: fadb08e7c750 ("kunit: Support for Parameterized Testing")
I tried to reproduce the problem described and was unable to. Anyway, from the code it definitely looks like there is a bug like you describe. And it definitely looks like your change should fix it.
Anyway, I tried testing your fix, but given I was unable to reproduce the failure, I am not super confident in my testing. Still,
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins brendanhiggins@google.com
On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 4:26 AM Brendan Higgins brendanhiggins@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 8:57 PM David Gow davidgow@google.com wrote:
When one parameter of a parameterised test failed, its failure would be propagated to the overall test, but not to the suite result (unless it was the last parameter).
This is because test_case->success was being reset to the test->success result after each parameter was used, so a failing test's result would be overwritten by a non-failing result. The overall test result was handled in a third variable, test_result, but this was disacarded after the status line was printed.
nit: s/disacarded/discarded/g
Instead, just propagate the result after each parameter run.
Signed-off-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com Fixes: fadb08e7c750 ("kunit: Support for Parameterized Testing")
I tried to reproduce the problem described and was unable to. Anyway, from the code it definitely looks like there is a bug like you describe. And it definitely looks like your change should fix it.
I was able to reproduce this again myself. Note that the kunit_tool wrapper does its own result propagation which doesn't have a similar bug, so you won't see the issue in its parsed results. (Using the --raw_output flag does show it, though).
Here's the output from a patched UUID suite, which deliberately fails the first parameter of the first two tests and passes the other parameters and tests, which exhibits the issue:
TAP version 14 1..1 # Subtest: uuid 1..4 # uuid_correct_be: ASSERTION FAILED at lib/test_uuid.c:57 Expected uuid_parse(data->uuid, &be) == 0, but uuid_parse(data->uuid, &be) == -22
failed to parse 'c33fx4995-3701-450e-9fbf-206a2e98e576' # uuid_correct_be: not ok 1 - c33fx4995-3701-450e-9fbf-206a2e98e576 # uuid_correct_be: ok 2 - 64b4371c-77c1-48f9-8221-29f054fc023b # uuid_correct_be: ok 3 - 0cb4ddff-a545-4401-9d06-688af53e7f84 not ok 1 - uuid_correct_be # uuid_correct_le: ASSERTION FAILED at lib/test_uuid.c:46 Expected guid_parse(data->uuid, &le) == 0, but guid_parse(data->uuid, &le) == -22
failed to parse 'c33fx4995-3701-450e-9fbf-206a2e98e576' # uuid_correct_le: not ok 1 - c33fx4995-3701-450e-9fbf-206a2e98e576 # uuid_correct_le: ok 2 - 64b4371c-77c1-48f9-8221-29f054fc023b # uuid_correct_le: ok 3 - 0cb4ddff-a545-4401-9d06-688af53e7f84 not ok 2 - uuid_correct_le # uuid_wrong_be: ok 1 - c33f4995-3701-450e-9fbf206a2e98e576 # uuid_wrong_be: ok 2 - 64b4371c-77c1-48f9-8221-29f054XX023b # uuid_wrong_be: ok 3 - 0cb4ddff-a545-4401-9d06-688af53e ok 3 - uuid_wrong_be # uuid_wrong_le: ok 1 - c33f4995-3701-450e-9fbf206a2e98e576 # uuid_wrong_le: ok 2 - 64b4371c-77c1-48f9-8221-29f054XX023b # uuid_wrong_le: ok 3 - 0cb4ddff-a545-4401-9d06-688af53e ok 4 - uuid_wrong_le ok 1 - uuid
Note the "not ok 1 - uuid_correct_be" line, yet it ending in "ok 1 - uuid".
Anyway, I tried testing your fix, but given I was unable to reproduce the failure, I am not super confident in my testing. Still,
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins brendanhiggins@google.com
linux-kselftest-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Brendan Higgins -
David Gow -
Marco Elver -
Shuah Khan