Implementation of support for parameterized testing in KUnit. This approach requires the creation of a test case using the KUNIT_CASE_PARAM() macro that accepts a generator function as input.
This generator function should return the next parameter given the previous parameter in parameterized tests. It also provides a macro to generate common-case generators based on arrays. Generators may also optionally provide a human-readable description of parameters, which is displayed where available.
Note, currently the result of each parameter run is displayed in diagnostic lines, and only the overall test case output summarizes TAP-compliant success or failure of all parameter runs. In future, when supported by kunit-tool, these can be turned into subsubtest outputs.
Signed-off-by: Arpitha Raghunandan 98.arpi@gmail.com Co-developed-by: Marco Elver elver@google.com Signed-off-by: Marco Elver elver@google.com --- Changes v8->v9: - No change to this patch of the patch series
Changes v7->v8: - Increase KUNIT_PARAM_DESC_SIZE to 128 - Format pointer style appropriately
Changes v6->v7: - Clarify commit message. - Introduce ability to optionally generate descriptions for parameters; if no description is provided, we'll still print 'param-N'. - Change diagnostic line format to: # <test-case-name>: <ok|not ok> N - [<param description>]
Changes v5->v6: - Fix alignment to maintain consistency
Changes v4->v5: - Update kernel-doc comments. - Use const void* for generator return and prev value types. - Add kernel-doc comment for KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM. - Rework parameterized test case execution strategy: each parameter is executed as if it was its own test case, with its own test initialization and cleanup (init and exit are called, etc.). However, we cannot add new test cases per TAP protocol once we have already started execution. Instead, log the result of each parameter run as a diagnostic comment.
Changes v3->v4: - Rename kunit variables - Rename generator function helper macro - Add documentation for generator approach - Display test case name in case of failure along with param index
Changes v2->v3: - Modifictaion of generator macro and method
Changes v1->v2: - Use of a generator method to access test case parameters Changes v6->v7: - Clarify commit message. - Introduce ability to optionally generate descriptions for parameters; if no description is provided, we'll still print 'param-N'. - Change diagnostic line format to: # <test-case-name>: <ok|not ok> N - [<param description>] - Before execution of parameterized test case, count number of parameters and display number of parameters. Currently also as a diagnostic line, but this may be used in future to generate a subsubtest plan. A requirement of this change is that generators must generate a deterministic number of parameters.
Changes v5->v6: - Fix alignment to maintain consistency
Changes v4->v5: - Update kernel-doc comments. - Use const void* for generator return and prev value types. - Add kernel-doc comment for KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM. - Rework parameterized test case execution strategy: each parameter is executed as if it was its own test case, with its own test initialization and cleanup (init and exit are called, etc.). However, we cannot add new test cases per TAP protocol once we have already started execution. Instead, log the result of each parameter run as a diagnostic comment.
Changes v3->v4: - Rename kunit variables - Rename generator function helper macro - Add documentation for generator approach - Display test case name in case of failure along with param index
Changes v2->v3: - Modifictaion of generator macro and method
Changes v1->v2: - Use of a generator method to access test case parameters
include/kunit/test.h | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ lib/kunit/test.c | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- 2 files changed, 97 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h index db1b0ae666c4..27b42a008c7a 100644 --- a/include/kunit/test.h +++ b/include/kunit/test.h @@ -94,6 +94,9 @@ struct kunit; /* Size of log associated with test. */ #define KUNIT_LOG_SIZE 512
+/* Maximum size of parameter description string. */ +#define KUNIT_PARAM_DESC_SIZE 128 + /* * TAP specifies subtest stream indentation of 4 spaces, 8 spaces for a * sub-subtest. See the "Subtests" section in @@ -107,6 +110,7 @@ struct kunit; * * @run_case: the function representing the actual test case. * @name: the name of the test case. + * @generate_params: the generator function for parameterized tests. * * A test case is a function with the signature, * ``void (*)(struct kunit *)`` @@ -141,6 +145,7 @@ struct kunit; struct kunit_case { void (*run_case)(struct kunit *test); const char *name; + const void* (*generate_params)(const void *prev, char *desc);
/* private: internal use only. */ bool success; @@ -163,6 +168,27 @@ static inline char *kunit_status_to_string(bool status) */ #define KUNIT_CASE(test_name) { .run_case = test_name, .name = #test_name }
+/** + * KUNIT_CASE_PARAM - A helper for creation a parameterized &struct kunit_case + * + * @test_name: a reference to a test case function. + * @gen_params: a reference to a parameter generator function. + * + * The generator function:: + * + * const void* gen_params(const void *prev, char *desc) + * + * is used to lazily generate a series of arbitrarily typed values that fit into + * a void*. The argument @prev is the previously returned value, which should be + * used to derive the next value; @prev is set to NULL on the initial generator + * call. When no more values are available, the generator must return NULL. + * Optionally write a string into @desc (size of KUNIT_PARAM_DESC_SIZE) + * describing the parameter. + */ +#define KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(test_name, gen_params) \ + { .run_case = test_name, .name = #test_name, \ + .generate_params = gen_params } + /** * struct kunit_suite - describes a related collection of &struct kunit_case * @@ -208,6 +234,10 @@ struct kunit { const char *name; /* Read only after initialization! */ char *log; /* Points at case log after initialization */ struct kunit_try_catch try_catch; + /* param_value is the current parameter value for a test case. */ + const void *param_value; + /* param_index stores the index of the parameter in parameterized tests. */ + int param_index; /* * success starts as true, and may only be set to false during a * test case; thus, it is safe to update this across multiple @@ -1742,4 +1772,25 @@ do { \ fmt, \ ##__VA_ARGS__)
+/** + * KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM() - Define test parameter generator from an array. + * @name: prefix for the test parameter generator function. + * @array: array of test parameters. + * @get_desc: function to convert param to description; NULL to use default + * + * Define function @name_gen_params which uses @array to generate parameters. + */ +#define KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM(name, array, get_desc) \ + static const void *name##_gen_params(const void *prev, char *desc) \ + { \ + typeof((array)[0]) *__next = prev ? ((typeof(__next)) prev) + 1 : (array); \ + if (__next - (array) < ARRAY_SIZE((array))) { \ + void (*__get_desc)(typeof(__next), char *) = get_desc; \ + if (__get_desc) \ + __get_desc(__next, desc); \ + return __next; \ + } \ + return NULL; \ + } + #endif /* _KUNIT_TEST_H */ diff --git a/lib/kunit/test.c b/lib/kunit/test.c index 750704abe89a..ec9494e914ef 100644 --- a/lib/kunit/test.c +++ b/lib/kunit/test.c @@ -325,39 +325,72 @@ static void kunit_catch_run_case(void *data) * occur in a test case and reports them as failures. */ static void kunit_run_case_catch_errors(struct kunit_suite *suite, - struct kunit_case *test_case) + struct kunit_case *test_case, + struct kunit *test) { struct kunit_try_catch_context context; struct kunit_try_catch *try_catch; - struct kunit test;
- kunit_init_test(&test, test_case->name, test_case->log); - try_catch = &test.try_catch; + kunit_init_test(test, test_case->name, test_case->log); + try_catch = &test->try_catch;
kunit_try_catch_init(try_catch, - &test, + test, kunit_try_run_case, kunit_catch_run_case); - context.test = &test; + context.test = test; context.suite = suite; context.test_case = test_case; kunit_try_catch_run(try_catch, &context);
- test_case->success = test.success; - - kunit_print_ok_not_ok(&test, true, test_case->success, - kunit_test_case_num(suite, test_case), - test_case->name); + test_case->success = test->success; }
int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite) { + char param_desc[KUNIT_PARAM_DESC_SIZE]; struct kunit_case *test_case;
kunit_print_subtest_start(suite);
- kunit_suite_for_each_test_case(suite, test_case) - kunit_run_case_catch_errors(suite, test_case); + kunit_suite_for_each_test_case(suite, test_case) { + struct kunit test = { .param_value = NULL, .param_index = 0 }; + bool test_success = true; + + if (test_case->generate_params) { + /* Get initial param. */ + param_desc[0] = '\0'; + test.param_value = test_case->generate_params(NULL, param_desc); + } + + 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') { + snprintf(param_desc, sizeof(param_desc), + "param-%d", test.param_index); + } + + kunit_log(KERN_INFO, &test, + KUNIT_SUBTEST_INDENT + "# %s: %s %d - %s", + test_case->name, + kunit_status_to_string(test.success), + test.param_index + 1, param_desc); + + /* Get next param. */ + param_desc[0] = '\0'; + test.param_value = test_case->generate_params(test.param_value, param_desc); + test.param_index++; + } + } while (test.param_value); + + kunit_print_ok_not_ok(&test, true, test_success, + kunit_test_case_num(suite, test_case), + test_case->name); + }
kunit_print_subtest_end(suite);
Modify fs/ext4/inode-test.c to use the parameterized testing feature of KUnit.
Signed-off-by: Arpitha Raghunandan 98.arpi@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Marco Elver elver@google.com --- Changes v8->v9: - Replace strncpy() with strscpy() in timestamp_expectation_to_desc() Changes v7->v8: - Replace strcpy() with strncpy() in timestamp_expectation_to_desc() Changes v6->v7: - Introduce timestamp_expectation_to_desc() to convert param to description. Changes v5->v6: - No change to this patch of the patch series Changes v4->v5: - No change to this patch of the patch series Changes v3->v4: - Modification based on latest implementation of KUnit parameterized testing Changes v2->v3: - Marked hardcoded test data const - Modification based on latest implementation of KUnit parameterized testing Changes v1->v2: - Modification based on latest implementation of KUnit parameterized testing
fs/ext4/inode-test.c | 320 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- 1 file changed, 164 insertions(+), 156 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode-test.c b/fs/ext4/inode-test.c index d62d802c9c12..7935ea6cf92c 100644 --- a/fs/ext4/inode-test.c +++ b/fs/ext4/inode-test.c @@ -80,6 +80,145 @@ struct timestamp_expectation { bool lower_bound; };
+static const struct timestamp_expectation test_data[] = { + { + .test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NEG_NO_EXTRA_BITS_CASE, + .msb_set = true, + .lower_bound = true, + .extra_bits = 0, + .expected = {.tv_sec = -0x80000000LL, .tv_nsec = 0L}, + }, + + { + .test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NEG_NO_EXTRA_BITS_CASE, + .msb_set = true, + .lower_bound = false, + .extra_bits = 0, + .expected = {.tv_sec = -1LL, .tv_nsec = 0L}, + }, + + { + .test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NONNEG_NO_EXTRA_BITS_CASE, + .msb_set = false, + .lower_bound = true, + .extra_bits = 0, + .expected = {0LL, 0L}, + }, + + { + .test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NONNEG_NO_EXTRA_BITS_CASE, + .msb_set = false, + .lower_bound = false, + .extra_bits = 0, + .expected = {.tv_sec = 0x7fffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 0L}, + }, + + { + .test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NEG_LO_1_CASE, + .msb_set = true, + .lower_bound = true, + .extra_bits = 1, + .expected = {.tv_sec = 0x80000000LL, .tv_nsec = 0L}, + }, + + { + .test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NEG_LO_1_CASE, + .msb_set = true, + .lower_bound = false, + .extra_bits = 1, + .expected = {.tv_sec = 0xffffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 0L}, + }, + + { + .test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NONNEG_LO_1_CASE, + .msb_set = false, + .lower_bound = true, + .extra_bits = 1, + .expected = {.tv_sec = 0x100000000LL, .tv_nsec = 0L}, + }, + + { + .test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NONNEG_LO_1_CASE, + .msb_set = false, + .lower_bound = false, + .extra_bits = 1, + .expected = {.tv_sec = 0x17fffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 0L}, + }, + + { + .test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NEG_HI_1_CASE, + .msb_set = true, + .lower_bound = true, + .extra_bits = 2, + .expected = {.tv_sec = 0x180000000LL, .tv_nsec = 0L}, + }, + + { + .test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NEG_HI_1_CASE, + .msb_set = true, + .lower_bound = false, + .extra_bits = 2, + .expected = {.tv_sec = 0x1ffffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 0L}, + }, + + { + .test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NONNEG_HI_1_CASE, + .msb_set = false, + .lower_bound = true, + .extra_bits = 2, + .expected = {.tv_sec = 0x200000000LL, .tv_nsec = 0L}, + }, + + { + .test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NONNEG_HI_1_CASE, + .msb_set = false, + .lower_bound = false, + .extra_bits = 2, + .expected = {.tv_sec = 0x27fffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 0L}, + }, + + { + .test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NONNEG_HI_1_NS_1_CASE, + .msb_set = false, + .lower_bound = false, + .extra_bits = 6, + .expected = {.tv_sec = 0x27fffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 1L}, + }, + + { + .test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NONNEG_HI_1_NS_MAX_CASE, + .msb_set = false, + .lower_bound = true, + .extra_bits = 0xFFFFFFFF, + .expected = {.tv_sec = 0x300000000LL, + .tv_nsec = MAX_NANOSECONDS}, + }, + + { + .test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NONNEG_EXTRA_BITS_1_CASE, + .msb_set = false, + .lower_bound = true, + .extra_bits = 3, + .expected = {.tv_sec = 0x300000000LL, .tv_nsec = 0L}, + }, + + { + .test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NONNEG_EXTRA_BITS_1_CASE, + .msb_set = false, + .lower_bound = false, + .extra_bits = 3, + .expected = {.tv_sec = 0x37fffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 0L}, + } +}; + +static void timestamp_expectation_to_desc(const struct timestamp_expectation *t, + char *desc) +{ + strscpy(desc, t->test_case_name, KUNIT_PARAM_DESC_SIZE); +} + +KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM(ext4_inode, test_data, timestamp_expectation_to_desc); + static time64_t get_32bit_time(const struct timestamp_expectation * const test) { if (test->msb_set) { @@ -101,166 +240,35 @@ static time64_t get_32bit_time(const struct timestamp_expectation * const test) */ static void inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding(struct kunit *test) { - const struct timestamp_expectation test_data[] = { - { - .test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NEG_NO_EXTRA_BITS_CASE, - .msb_set = true, - .lower_bound = true, - .extra_bits = 0, - .expected = {.tv_sec = -0x80000000LL, .tv_nsec = 0L}, - }, - - { - .test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NEG_NO_EXTRA_BITS_CASE, - .msb_set = true, - .lower_bound = false, - .extra_bits = 0, - .expected = {.tv_sec = -1LL, .tv_nsec = 0L}, - }, - - { - .test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NONNEG_NO_EXTRA_BITS_CASE, - .msb_set = false, - .lower_bound = true, - .extra_bits = 0, - .expected = {0LL, 0L}, - }, - - { - .test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NONNEG_NO_EXTRA_BITS_CASE, - .msb_set = false, - .lower_bound = false, - .extra_bits = 0, - .expected = {.tv_sec = 0x7fffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 0L}, - }, - - { - .test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NEG_LO_1_CASE, - .msb_set = true, - .lower_bound = true, - .extra_bits = 1, - .expected = {.tv_sec = 0x80000000LL, .tv_nsec = 0L}, - }, - - { - .test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NEG_LO_1_CASE, - .msb_set = true, - .lower_bound = false, - .extra_bits = 1, - .expected = {.tv_sec = 0xffffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 0L}, - }, - - { - .test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NONNEG_LO_1_CASE, - .msb_set = false, - .lower_bound = true, - .extra_bits = 1, - .expected = {.tv_sec = 0x100000000LL, .tv_nsec = 0L}, - }, - - { - .test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NONNEG_LO_1_CASE, - .msb_set = false, - .lower_bound = false, - .extra_bits = 1, - .expected = {.tv_sec = 0x17fffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 0L}, - }, - - { - .test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NEG_HI_1_CASE, - .msb_set = true, - .lower_bound = true, - .extra_bits = 2, - .expected = {.tv_sec = 0x180000000LL, .tv_nsec = 0L}, - }, - - { - .test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NEG_HI_1_CASE, - .msb_set = true, - .lower_bound = false, - .extra_bits = 2, - .expected = {.tv_sec = 0x1ffffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 0L}, - }, - - { - .test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NONNEG_HI_1_CASE, - .msb_set = false, - .lower_bound = true, - .extra_bits = 2, - .expected = {.tv_sec = 0x200000000LL, .tv_nsec = 0L}, - }, - - { - .test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NONNEG_HI_1_CASE, - .msb_set = false, - .lower_bound = false, - .extra_bits = 2, - .expected = {.tv_sec = 0x27fffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 0L}, - }, - - { - .test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NONNEG_HI_1_NS_1_CASE, - .msb_set = false, - .lower_bound = false, - .extra_bits = 6, - .expected = {.tv_sec = 0x27fffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 1L}, - }, - - { - .test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NONNEG_HI_1_NS_MAX_CASE, - .msb_set = false, - .lower_bound = true, - .extra_bits = 0xFFFFFFFF, - .expected = {.tv_sec = 0x300000000LL, - .tv_nsec = MAX_NANOSECONDS}, - }, - - { - .test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NONNEG_EXTRA_BITS_1_CASE, - .msb_set = false, - .lower_bound = true, - .extra_bits = 3, - .expected = {.tv_sec = 0x300000000LL, .tv_nsec = 0L}, - }, - - { - .test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NONNEG_EXTRA_BITS_1_CASE, - .msb_set = false, - .lower_bound = false, - .extra_bits = 3, - .expected = {.tv_sec = 0x37fffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 0L}, - } - }; - struct timespec64 timestamp; - int i; - - for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(test_data); ++i) { - timestamp.tv_sec = get_32bit_time(&test_data[i]); - ext4_decode_extra_time(×tamp, - cpu_to_le32(test_data[i].extra_bits)); - - KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, - test_data[i].expected.tv_sec, - timestamp.tv_sec, - CASE_NAME_FORMAT, - test_data[i].test_case_name, - test_data[i].msb_set, - test_data[i].lower_bound, - test_data[i].extra_bits); - KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, - test_data[i].expected.tv_nsec, - timestamp.tv_nsec, - CASE_NAME_FORMAT, - test_data[i].test_case_name, - test_data[i].msb_set, - test_data[i].lower_bound, - test_data[i].extra_bits); - } + + struct timestamp_expectation *test_param = + (struct timestamp_expectation *)(test->param_value); + + timestamp.tv_sec = get_32bit_time(test_param); + ext4_decode_extra_time(×tamp, + cpu_to_le32(test_param->extra_bits)); + + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, + test_param->expected.tv_sec, + timestamp.tv_sec, + CASE_NAME_FORMAT, + test_param->test_case_name, + test_param->msb_set, + test_param->lower_bound, + test_param->extra_bits); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, + test_param->expected.tv_nsec, + timestamp.tv_nsec, + CASE_NAME_FORMAT, + test_param->test_case_name, + test_param->msb_set, + test_param->lower_bound, + test_param->extra_bits); }
static struct kunit_case ext4_inode_test_cases[] = { - KUNIT_CASE(inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding), + KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding, ext4_inode_gen_params), {} };
On Mon, 16 Nov 2020 at 06:42, Arpitha Raghunandan 98.arpi@gmail.com wrote:
Modify fs/ext4/inode-test.c to use the parameterized testing feature of KUnit.
Signed-off-by: Arpitha Raghunandan 98.arpi@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Marco Elver elver@google.com
Reviewed-by: Marco Elver elver@google.com
Thank you!
Changes v8->v9:
- Replace strncpy() with strscpy() in timestamp_expectation_to_desc()
Changes v7->v8:
- Replace strcpy() with strncpy() in timestamp_expectation_to_desc()
Changes v6->v7:
- Introduce timestamp_expectation_to_desc() to convert param to description.
Changes v5->v6:
- No change to this patch of the patch series
Changes v4->v5:
- No change to this patch of the patch series
Changes v3->v4:
- Modification based on latest implementation of KUnit parameterized testing
Changes v2->v3:
- Marked hardcoded test data const
- Modification based on latest implementation of KUnit parameterized testing
Changes v1->v2:
- Modification based on latest implementation of KUnit parameterized testing
fs/ext4/inode-test.c | 320 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- 1 file changed, 164 insertions(+), 156 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode-test.c b/fs/ext4/inode-test.c index d62d802c9c12..7935ea6cf92c 100644 --- a/fs/ext4/inode-test.c +++ b/fs/ext4/inode-test.c @@ -80,6 +80,145 @@ struct timestamp_expectation { bool lower_bound; };
+static const struct timestamp_expectation test_data[] = {
{
.test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NEG_NO_EXTRA_BITS_CASE,
.msb_set = true,
.lower_bound = true,
.extra_bits = 0,
.expected = {.tv_sec = -0x80000000LL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
},
{
.test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NEG_NO_EXTRA_BITS_CASE,
.msb_set = true,
.lower_bound = false,
.extra_bits = 0,
.expected = {.tv_sec = -1LL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
},
{
.test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NONNEG_NO_EXTRA_BITS_CASE,
.msb_set = false,
.lower_bound = true,
.extra_bits = 0,
.expected = {0LL, 0L},
},
{
.test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NONNEG_NO_EXTRA_BITS_CASE,
.msb_set = false,
.lower_bound = false,
.extra_bits = 0,
.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x7fffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
},
{
.test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NEG_LO_1_CASE,
.msb_set = true,
.lower_bound = true,
.extra_bits = 1,
.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x80000000LL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
},
{
.test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NEG_LO_1_CASE,
.msb_set = true,
.lower_bound = false,
.extra_bits = 1,
.expected = {.tv_sec = 0xffffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
},
{
.test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NONNEG_LO_1_CASE,
.msb_set = false,
.lower_bound = true,
.extra_bits = 1,
.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x100000000LL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
},
{
.test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NONNEG_LO_1_CASE,
.msb_set = false,
.lower_bound = false,
.extra_bits = 1,
.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x17fffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
},
{
.test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NEG_HI_1_CASE,
.msb_set = true,
.lower_bound = true,
.extra_bits = 2,
.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x180000000LL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
},
{
.test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NEG_HI_1_CASE,
.msb_set = true,
.lower_bound = false,
.extra_bits = 2,
.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x1ffffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
},
{
.test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NONNEG_HI_1_CASE,
.msb_set = false,
.lower_bound = true,
.extra_bits = 2,
.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x200000000LL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
},
{
.test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NONNEG_HI_1_CASE,
.msb_set = false,
.lower_bound = false,
.extra_bits = 2,
.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x27fffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
},
{
.test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NONNEG_HI_1_NS_1_CASE,
.msb_set = false,
.lower_bound = false,
.extra_bits = 6,
.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x27fffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 1L},
},
{
.test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NONNEG_HI_1_NS_MAX_CASE,
.msb_set = false,
.lower_bound = true,
.extra_bits = 0xFFFFFFFF,
.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x300000000LL,
.tv_nsec = MAX_NANOSECONDS},
},
{
.test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NONNEG_EXTRA_BITS_1_CASE,
.msb_set = false,
.lower_bound = true,
.extra_bits = 3,
.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x300000000LL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
},
{
.test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NONNEG_EXTRA_BITS_1_CASE,
.msb_set = false,
.lower_bound = false,
.extra_bits = 3,
.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x37fffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
}
+};
+static void timestamp_expectation_to_desc(const struct timestamp_expectation *t,
char *desc)
+{
strscpy(desc, t->test_case_name, KUNIT_PARAM_DESC_SIZE);
+}
+KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM(ext4_inode, test_data, timestamp_expectation_to_desc);
static time64_t get_32bit_time(const struct timestamp_expectation * const test) { if (test->msb_set) { @@ -101,166 +240,35 @@ static time64_t get_32bit_time(const struct timestamp_expectation * const test) */ static void inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding(struct kunit *test) {
const struct timestamp_expectation test_data[] = {
{
.test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NEG_NO_EXTRA_BITS_CASE,
.msb_set = true,
.lower_bound = true,
.extra_bits = 0,
.expected = {.tv_sec = -0x80000000LL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
},
{
.test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NEG_NO_EXTRA_BITS_CASE,
.msb_set = true,
.lower_bound = false,
.extra_bits = 0,
.expected = {.tv_sec = -1LL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
},
{
.test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NONNEG_NO_EXTRA_BITS_CASE,
.msb_set = false,
.lower_bound = true,
.extra_bits = 0,
.expected = {0LL, 0L},
},
{
.test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NONNEG_NO_EXTRA_BITS_CASE,
.msb_set = false,
.lower_bound = false,
.extra_bits = 0,
.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x7fffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
},
{
.test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NEG_LO_1_CASE,
.msb_set = true,
.lower_bound = true,
.extra_bits = 1,
.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x80000000LL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
},
{
.test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NEG_LO_1_CASE,
.msb_set = true,
.lower_bound = false,
.extra_bits = 1,
.expected = {.tv_sec = 0xffffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
},
{
.test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NONNEG_LO_1_CASE,
.msb_set = false,
.lower_bound = true,
.extra_bits = 1,
.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x100000000LL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
},
{
.test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NONNEG_LO_1_CASE,
.msb_set = false,
.lower_bound = false,
.extra_bits = 1,
.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x17fffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
},
{
.test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NEG_HI_1_CASE,
.msb_set = true,
.lower_bound = true,
.extra_bits = 2,
.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x180000000LL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
},
{
.test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NEG_HI_1_CASE,
.msb_set = true,
.lower_bound = false,
.extra_bits = 2,
.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x1ffffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
},
{
.test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NONNEG_HI_1_CASE,
.msb_set = false,
.lower_bound = true,
.extra_bits = 2,
.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x200000000LL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
},
{
.test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NONNEG_HI_1_CASE,
.msb_set = false,
.lower_bound = false,
.extra_bits = 2,
.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x27fffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
},
{
.test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NONNEG_HI_1_NS_1_CASE,
.msb_set = false,
.lower_bound = false,
.extra_bits = 6,
.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x27fffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 1L},
},
{
.test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NONNEG_HI_1_NS_MAX_CASE,
.msb_set = false,
.lower_bound = true,
.extra_bits = 0xFFFFFFFF,
.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x300000000LL,
.tv_nsec = MAX_NANOSECONDS},
},
{
.test_case_name = LOWER_BOUND_NONNEG_EXTRA_BITS_1_CASE,
.msb_set = false,
.lower_bound = true,
.extra_bits = 3,
.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x300000000LL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
},
{
.test_case_name = UPPER_BOUND_NONNEG_EXTRA_BITS_1_CASE,
.msb_set = false,
.lower_bound = false,
.extra_bits = 3,
.expected = {.tv_sec = 0x37fffffffLL, .tv_nsec = 0L},
}
};
struct timespec64 timestamp;
int i;
for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(test_data); ++i) {
timestamp.tv_sec = get_32bit_time(&test_data[i]);
ext4_decode_extra_time(×tamp,
cpu_to_le32(test_data[i].extra_bits));
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test,
test_data[i].expected.tv_sec,
timestamp.tv_sec,
CASE_NAME_FORMAT,
test_data[i].test_case_name,
test_data[i].msb_set,
test_data[i].lower_bound,
test_data[i].extra_bits);
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test,
test_data[i].expected.tv_nsec,
timestamp.tv_nsec,
CASE_NAME_FORMAT,
test_data[i].test_case_name,
test_data[i].msb_set,
test_data[i].lower_bound,
test_data[i].extra_bits);
}
struct timestamp_expectation *test_param =
(struct timestamp_expectation *)(test->param_value);
timestamp.tv_sec = get_32bit_time(test_param);
ext4_decode_extra_time(×tamp,
cpu_to_le32(test_param->extra_bits));
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test,
test_param->expected.tv_sec,
timestamp.tv_sec,
CASE_NAME_FORMAT,
test_param->test_case_name,
test_param->msb_set,
test_param->lower_bound,
test_param->extra_bits);
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test,
test_param->expected.tv_nsec,
timestamp.tv_nsec,
CASE_NAME_FORMAT,
test_param->test_case_name,
test_param->msb_set,
test_param->lower_bound,
test_param->extra_bits);
}
static struct kunit_case ext4_inode_test_cases[] = {
KUNIT_CASE(inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding),
KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(inode_test_xtimestamp_decoding, ext4_inode_gen_params), {}
};
-- 2.25.1
On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 1:42 PM Arpitha Raghunandan 98.arpi@gmail.com wrote:
Modify fs/ext4/inode-test.c to use the parameterized testing feature of KUnit.
Signed-off-by: Arpitha Raghunandan 98.arpi@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Marco Elver elver@google.com
[Resending this because the HTML-email demon struck again! Sorry for the mess!]
Thanks: this is working well over here. The only (minor) issue I've noticed is that the diagnostic output is too big for the default log buffer if debugfs output is used, causing some of the messages to be dropped from the debugfs results file. But that's clearly not an issue with this patch, and the actual combined result is still present (and the complete results should show up in dmesg anyway).
Tested-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com Reviewed-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com
Thanks! -- David
Modify fs/ext4/inode-test.c to use the parameterized testing feature of KUnit.
Reviewed-by: Iurii Zaikin yzaikin@google.com
On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 11:11:50AM +0530, Arpitha Raghunandan wrote:
Modify fs/ext4/inode-test.c to use the parameterized testing feature of KUnit.
Signed-off-by: Arpitha Raghunandan 98.arpi@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Marco Elver elver@google.com
Acked-by: Theodore Ts'o tytso@mit.edu
On 12/2/20 9:07 AM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 11:11:50AM +0530, Arpitha Raghunandan wrote:
Modify fs/ext4/inode-test.c to use the parameterized testing feature of KUnit.
Signed-off-by: Arpitha Raghunandan 98.arpi@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Marco Elver elver@google.com
Acked-by: Theodore Ts'o tytso@mit.edu
Thanks Ted.
-- Shuah
On Mon, 16 Nov 2020 at 06:41, Arpitha Raghunandan 98.arpi@gmail.com wrote:
Implementation of support for parameterized testing in KUnit. This approach requires the creation of a test case using the KUNIT_CASE_PARAM() macro that accepts a generator function as input.
This generator function should return the next parameter given the previous parameter in parameterized tests. It also provides a macro to generate common-case generators based on arrays. Generators may also optionally provide a human-readable description of parameters, which is displayed where available.
Note, currently the result of each parameter run is displayed in diagnostic lines, and only the overall test case output summarizes TAP-compliant success or failure of all parameter runs. In future, when supported by kunit-tool, these can be turned into subsubtest outputs.
Signed-off-by: Arpitha Raghunandan 98.arpi@gmail.com Co-developed-by: Marco Elver elver@google.com Signed-off-by: Marco Elver elver@google.com
This and patch 2/2 look good to me.
Thank you!
-- Marco
Changes v8->v9:
- No change to this patch of the patch series
Changes v7->v8:
- Increase KUNIT_PARAM_DESC_SIZE to 128
- Format pointer style appropriately
Changes v6->v7:
- Clarify commit message.
- Introduce ability to optionally generate descriptions for parameters; if no description is provided, we'll still print 'param-N'.
- Change diagnostic line format to: # <test-case-name>: <ok|not ok> N - [<param description>]
Changes v5->v6:
- Fix alignment to maintain consistency
Changes v4->v5:
- Update kernel-doc comments.
- Use const void* for generator return and prev value types.
- Add kernel-doc comment for KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM.
- Rework parameterized test case execution strategy: each parameter is executed as if it was its own test case, with its own test initialization and cleanup (init and exit are called, etc.). However, we cannot add new test cases per TAP protocol once we have already started execution. Instead, log the result of each parameter run as a diagnostic comment.
Changes v3->v4:
- Rename kunit variables
- Rename generator function helper macro
- Add documentation for generator approach
- Display test case name in case of failure along with param index
Changes v2->v3:
- Modifictaion of generator macro and method
Changes v1->v2:
- Use of a generator method to access test case parameters
Changes v6->v7:
- Clarify commit message.
- Introduce ability to optionally generate descriptions for parameters; if no description is provided, we'll still print 'param-N'.
- Change diagnostic line format to: # <test-case-name>: <ok|not ok> N - [<param description>]
- Before execution of parameterized test case, count number of parameters and display number of parameters. Currently also as a diagnostic line, but this may be used in future to generate a subsubtest plan. A requirement of this change is that generators must generate a deterministic number of parameters.
Changes v5->v6:
- Fix alignment to maintain consistency
Changes v4->v5:
- Update kernel-doc comments.
- Use const void* for generator return and prev value types.
- Add kernel-doc comment for KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM.
- Rework parameterized test case execution strategy: each parameter is executed as if it was its own test case, with its own test initialization and cleanup (init and exit are called, etc.). However, we cannot add new test cases per TAP protocol once we have already started execution. Instead, log the result of each parameter run as a diagnostic comment.
Changes v3->v4:
- Rename kunit variables
- Rename generator function helper macro
- Add documentation for generator approach
- Display test case name in case of failure along with param index
Changes v2->v3:
- Modifictaion of generator macro and method
Changes v1->v2:
- Use of a generator method to access test case parameters
include/kunit/test.h | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ lib/kunit/test.c | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- 2 files changed, 97 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h index db1b0ae666c4..27b42a008c7a 100644 --- a/include/kunit/test.h +++ b/include/kunit/test.h @@ -94,6 +94,9 @@ struct kunit; /* Size of log associated with test. */ #define KUNIT_LOG_SIZE 512
+/* Maximum size of parameter description string. */ +#define KUNIT_PARAM_DESC_SIZE 128
/*
- TAP specifies subtest stream indentation of 4 spaces, 8 spaces for a
- sub-subtest. See the "Subtests" section in
@@ -107,6 +110,7 @@ struct kunit;
- @run_case: the function representing the actual test case.
- @name: the name of the test case.
- @generate_params: the generator function for parameterized tests.
- A test case is a function with the signature,
- ``void (*)(struct kunit *)``
@@ -141,6 +145,7 @@ struct kunit; struct kunit_case { void (*run_case)(struct kunit *test); const char *name;
const void* (*generate_params)(const void *prev, char *desc); /* private: internal use only. */ bool success;
@@ -163,6 +168,27 @@ static inline char *kunit_status_to_string(bool status) */ #define KUNIT_CASE(test_name) { .run_case = test_name, .name = #test_name }
+/**
- KUNIT_CASE_PARAM - A helper for creation a parameterized &struct kunit_case
- @test_name: a reference to a test case function.
- @gen_params: a reference to a parameter generator function.
- The generator function::
const void* gen_params(const void *prev, char *desc)
- is used to lazily generate a series of arbitrarily typed values that fit into
- a void*. The argument @prev is the previously returned value, which should be
- used to derive the next value; @prev is set to NULL on the initial generator
- call. When no more values are available, the generator must return NULL.
- Optionally write a string into @desc (size of KUNIT_PARAM_DESC_SIZE)
- describing the parameter.
- */
+#define KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(test_name, gen_params) \
{ .run_case = test_name, .name = #test_name, \
.generate_params = gen_params }
/**
- struct kunit_suite - describes a related collection of &struct kunit_case
@@ -208,6 +234,10 @@ struct kunit { const char *name; /* Read only after initialization! */ char *log; /* Points at case log after initialization */ struct kunit_try_catch try_catch;
/* param_value is the current parameter value for a test case. */
const void *param_value;
/* param_index stores the index of the parameter in parameterized tests. */
int param_index; /* * success starts as true, and may only be set to false during a * test case; thus, it is safe to update this across multiple
@@ -1742,4 +1772,25 @@ do { \ fmt, \ ##__VA_ARGS__)
+/**
- KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM() - Define test parameter generator from an array.
- @name: prefix for the test parameter generator function.
- @array: array of test parameters.
- @get_desc: function to convert param to description; NULL to use default
- Define function @name_gen_params which uses @array to generate parameters.
- */
+#define KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM(name, array, get_desc) \
static const void *name##_gen_params(const void *prev, char *desc) \
{ \
typeof((array)[0]) *__next = prev ? ((typeof(__next)) prev) + 1 : (array); \
if (__next - (array) < ARRAY_SIZE((array))) { \
void (*__get_desc)(typeof(__next), char *) = get_desc; \
if (__get_desc) \
__get_desc(__next, desc); \
return __next; \
} \
return NULL; \
}
#endif /* _KUNIT_TEST_H */ diff --git a/lib/kunit/test.c b/lib/kunit/test.c index 750704abe89a..ec9494e914ef 100644 --- a/lib/kunit/test.c +++ b/lib/kunit/test.c @@ -325,39 +325,72 @@ static void kunit_catch_run_case(void *data)
- occur in a test case and reports them as failures.
*/ static void kunit_run_case_catch_errors(struct kunit_suite *suite,
struct kunit_case *test_case)
struct kunit_case *test_case,
struct kunit *test)
{ struct kunit_try_catch_context context; struct kunit_try_catch *try_catch;
struct kunit test;
kunit_init_test(&test, test_case->name, test_case->log);
try_catch = &test.try_catch;
kunit_init_test(test, test_case->name, test_case->log);
try_catch = &test->try_catch; kunit_try_catch_init(try_catch,
&test,
test, kunit_try_run_case, kunit_catch_run_case);
context.test = &test;
context.test = test; context.suite = suite; context.test_case = test_case; kunit_try_catch_run(try_catch, &context);
test_case->success = test.success;
kunit_print_ok_not_ok(&test, true, test_case->success,
kunit_test_case_num(suite, test_case),
test_case->name);
test_case->success = test->success;
}
int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite) {
char param_desc[KUNIT_PARAM_DESC_SIZE]; struct kunit_case *test_case; kunit_print_subtest_start(suite);
kunit_suite_for_each_test_case(suite, test_case)
kunit_run_case_catch_errors(suite, test_case);
kunit_suite_for_each_test_case(suite, test_case) {
struct kunit test = { .param_value = NULL, .param_index = 0 };
bool test_success = true;
if (test_case->generate_params) {
/* Get initial param. */
param_desc[0] = '\0';
test.param_value = test_case->generate_params(NULL, param_desc);
}
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') {
snprintf(param_desc, sizeof(param_desc),
"param-%d", test.param_index);
}
kunit_log(KERN_INFO, &test,
KUNIT_SUBTEST_INDENT
"# %s: %s %d - %s",
test_case->name,
kunit_status_to_string(test.success),
test.param_index + 1, param_desc);
/* Get next param. */
param_desc[0] = '\0';
test.param_value = test_case->generate_params(test.param_value, param_desc);
test.param_index++;
}
} while (test.param_value);
kunit_print_ok_not_ok(&test, true, test_success,
kunit_test_case_num(suite, test_case),
test_case->name);
} kunit_print_subtest_end(suite);
-- 2.25.1
On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 1:41 PM Arpitha Raghunandan 98.arpi@gmail.com wrote:
Implementation of support for parameterized testing in KUnit. This approach requires the creation of a test case using the KUNIT_CASE_PARAM() macro that accepts a generator function as input.
This generator function should return the next parameter given the previous parameter in parameterized tests. It also provides a macro to generate common-case generators based on arrays. Generators may also optionally provide a human-readable description of parameters, which is displayed where available.
Note, currently the result of each parameter run is displayed in diagnostic lines, and only the overall test case output summarizes TAP-compliant success or failure of all parameter runs. In future, when supported by kunit-tool, these can be turned into subsubtest outputs.
Signed-off-by: Arpitha Raghunandan 98.arpi@gmail.com Co-developed-by: Marco Elver elver@google.com Signed-off-by: Marco Elver elver@google.com
[Resending this because my email client re-defaulted to HTML! Aarrgh!]
This looks good to me! I tested it in UML and x86-64 w/ KASAN, and both worked fine.
Reviewed-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com Tested-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com
Thanks for sticking with this!
-- David
On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 at 08:21, David Gow davidgow@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 1:41 PM Arpitha Raghunandan 98.arpi@gmail.com wrote:
Implementation of support for parameterized testing in KUnit. This approach requires the creation of a test case using the KUNIT_CASE_PARAM() macro that accepts a generator function as input.
This generator function should return the next parameter given the previous parameter in parameterized tests. It also provides a macro to generate common-case generators based on arrays. Generators may also optionally provide a human-readable description of parameters, which is displayed where available.
Note, currently the result of each parameter run is displayed in diagnostic lines, and only the overall test case output summarizes TAP-compliant success or failure of all parameter runs. In future, when supported by kunit-tool, these can be turned into subsubtest outputs.
Signed-off-by: Arpitha Raghunandan 98.arpi@gmail.com Co-developed-by: Marco Elver elver@google.com Signed-off-by: Marco Elver elver@google.com
[Resending this because my email client re-defaulted to HTML! Aarrgh!]
This looks good to me! I tested it in UML and x86-64 w/ KASAN, and both worked fine.
Reviewed-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com Tested-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com
Thank you!
Thanks for sticking with this!
Will these patches be landing in 5.11 or 5.12?
-- David
Thanks, -- Marco
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 9:08 PM Marco Elver elver@google.com wrote:
On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 at 08:21, David Gow davidgow@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 1:41 PM Arpitha Raghunandan 98.arpi@gmail.com wrote:
Implementation of support for parameterized testing in KUnit. This approach requires the creation of a test case using the KUNIT_CASE_PARAM() macro that accepts a generator function as input.
This generator function should return the next parameter given the previous parameter in parameterized tests. It also provides a macro to generate common-case generators based on arrays. Generators may also optionally provide a human-readable description of parameters, which is displayed where available.
Note, currently the result of each parameter run is displayed in diagnostic lines, and only the overall test case output summarizes TAP-compliant success or failure of all parameter runs. In future, when supported by kunit-tool, these can be turned into subsubtest outputs.
Signed-off-by: Arpitha Raghunandan 98.arpi@gmail.com Co-developed-by: Marco Elver elver@google.com Signed-off-by: Marco Elver elver@google.com
[Resending this because my email client re-defaulted to HTML! Aarrgh!]
This looks good to me! I tested it in UML and x86-64 w/ KASAN, and both worked fine.
Reviewed-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com Tested-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com
Thank you!
Thanks for sticking with this!
Will these patches be landing in 5.11 or 5.12?
I can't think of any reason not to have these in 5.11. We haven't started staging things in the kselftest/kunit branch for 5.11 yet, though.
Patch 2 will probably need to be acked by Ted for ext4 first.
Brendan, Shuah: can you make sure this doesn't get lost in patchwork?
Cheers, -- David
-- David
Thanks, -- Marco
On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 at 08:25, David Gow davidgow@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 9:08 PM Marco Elver elver@google.com wrote:
On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 at 08:21, David Gow davidgow@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 1:41 PM Arpitha Raghunandan 98.arpi@gmail.com wrote:
Implementation of support for parameterized testing in KUnit. This approach requires the creation of a test case using the KUNIT_CASE_PARAM() macro that accepts a generator function as input.
This generator function should return the next parameter given the previous parameter in parameterized tests. It also provides a macro to generate common-case generators based on arrays. Generators may also optionally provide a human-readable description of parameters, which is displayed where available.
Note, currently the result of each parameter run is displayed in diagnostic lines, and only the overall test case output summarizes TAP-compliant success or failure of all parameter runs. In future, when supported by kunit-tool, these can be turned into subsubtest outputs.
Signed-off-by: Arpitha Raghunandan 98.arpi@gmail.com Co-developed-by: Marco Elver elver@google.com Signed-off-by: Marco Elver elver@google.com
[Resending this because my email client re-defaulted to HTML! Aarrgh!]
This looks good to me! I tested it in UML and x86-64 w/ KASAN, and both worked fine.
Reviewed-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com Tested-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com
Thank you!
Thanks for sticking with this!
Will these patches be landing in 5.11 or 5.12?
I can't think of any reason not to have these in 5.11. We haven't started staging things in the kselftest/kunit branch for 5.11 yet, though.
Patch 2 will probably need to be acked by Ted for ext4 first.
Patch 2 had already had 1 Reviewed-by on v3 that got lost. The core bits of that test haven't changed since then, but I can't tell if it needs a re-review.
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAAXuY3o9Xe-atK0Mja6qXLncUhmmVf4pR7hsANsqaoUX71RXV...
Thanks, -- Marco
Brendan, Shuah: can you make sure this doesn't get lost in patchwork?
Cheers, -- David
-- David
Thanks, -- Marco
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 11:25 PM David Gow davidgow@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 9:08 PM Marco Elver elver@google.com wrote:
On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 at 08:21, David Gow davidgow@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 1:41 PM Arpitha Raghunandan 98.arpi@gmail.com wrote:
Implementation of support for parameterized testing in KUnit. This approach requires the creation of a test case using the KUNIT_CASE_PARAM() macro that accepts a generator function as input.
This generator function should return the next parameter given the previous parameter in parameterized tests. It also provides a macro to generate common-case generators based on arrays. Generators may also optionally provide a human-readable description of parameters, which is displayed where available.
Note, currently the result of each parameter run is displayed in diagnostic lines, and only the overall test case output summarizes TAP-compliant success or failure of all parameter runs. In future, when supported by kunit-tool, these can be turned into subsubtest outputs.
Signed-off-by: Arpitha Raghunandan 98.arpi@gmail.com Co-developed-by: Marco Elver elver@google.com Signed-off-by: Marco Elver elver@google.com
[Resending this because my email client re-defaulted to HTML! Aarrgh!]
This looks good to me! I tested it in UML and x86-64 w/ KASAN, and both worked fine.
Reviewed-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com Tested-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com
Thank you!
Thanks for sticking with this!
Will these patches be landing in 5.11 or 5.12?
I can't think of any reason not to have these in 5.11. We haven't started staging things in the kselftest/kunit branch for 5.11 yet, though.
Patch 2 will probably need to be acked by Ted for ext4 first.
Brendan, Shuah: can you make sure this doesn't get lost in patchwork?
Looks good to me. I would definitely like to pick this up. But yeah, in order to pick up 2/2 we will need an ack from either Ted or Iurii.
Ted seems to be busy right now, so I think I will just ask Shuah to go ahead and pick this patch up by itself and we or Ted can pick up patch 2/2 later.
Cheers
On 11/30/20 3:22 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 11:25 PM David Gow davidgow@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 9:08 PM Marco Elver elver@google.com wrote:
On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 at 08:21, David Gow davidgow@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 1:41 PM Arpitha Raghunandan 98.arpi@gmail.com wrote:
Implementation of support for parameterized testing in KUnit. This approach requires the creation of a test case using the KUNIT_CASE_PARAM() macro that accepts a generator function as input.
This generator function should return the next parameter given the previous parameter in parameterized tests. It also provides a macro to generate common-case generators based on arrays. Generators may also optionally provide a human-readable description of parameters, which is displayed where available.
Note, currently the result of each parameter run is displayed in diagnostic lines, and only the overall test case output summarizes TAP-compliant success or failure of all parameter runs. In future, when supported by kunit-tool, these can be turned into subsubtest outputs.
Signed-off-by: Arpitha Raghunandan 98.arpi@gmail.com Co-developed-by: Marco Elver elver@google.com Signed-off-by: Marco Elver elver@google.com
[Resending this because my email client re-defaulted to HTML! Aarrgh!]
This looks good to me! I tested it in UML and x86-64 w/ KASAN, and both worked fine.
Reviewed-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com Tested-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com
Thank you!
Thanks for sticking with this!
Will these patches be landing in 5.11 or 5.12?
I can't think of any reason not to have these in 5.11. We haven't started staging things in the kselftest/kunit branch for 5.11 yet, though.
Patch 2 will probably need to be acked by Ted for ext4 first.
Brendan, Shuah: can you make sure this doesn't get lost in patchwork?
Looks good to me. I would definitely like to pick this up. But yeah, in order to pick up 2/2 we will need an ack from either Ted or Iurii.
Ted seems to be busy right now, so I think I will just ask Shuah to go ahead and pick this patch up by itself and we or Ted can pick up patch 2/2 later.
Cheers
I am seeing
ERROR: need consistent spacing around '*' (ctx:WxV) #272: FILE: include/kunit/test.h:1786: + typeof((array)[0]) *__next = prev ? ((typeof(__next)) prev) + 1 : (array); \ ^
Can you look into this and send v10?
thanks, -- Shuah
On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at 23:28, Shuah Khan skhan@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On 11/30/20 3:22 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 11:25 PM David Gow davidgow@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 9:08 PM Marco Elver elver@google.com wrote:
On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 at 08:21, David Gow davidgow@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 1:41 PM Arpitha Raghunandan 98.arpi@gmail.com wrote:
Implementation of support for parameterized testing in KUnit. This approach requires the creation of a test case using the KUNIT_CASE_PARAM() macro that accepts a generator function as input.
This generator function should return the next parameter given the previous parameter in parameterized tests. It also provides a macro to generate common-case generators based on arrays. Generators may also optionally provide a human-readable description of parameters, which is displayed where available.
Note, currently the result of each parameter run is displayed in diagnostic lines, and only the overall test case output summarizes TAP-compliant success or failure of all parameter runs. In future, when supported by kunit-tool, these can be turned into subsubtest outputs.
Signed-off-by: Arpitha Raghunandan 98.arpi@gmail.com Co-developed-by: Marco Elver elver@google.com Signed-off-by: Marco Elver elver@google.com
[Resending this because my email client re-defaulted to HTML! Aarrgh!]
This looks good to me! I tested it in UML and x86-64 w/ KASAN, and both worked fine.
Reviewed-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com Tested-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com
Thank you!
Thanks for sticking with this!
Will these patches be landing in 5.11 or 5.12?
I can't think of any reason not to have these in 5.11. We haven't started staging things in the kselftest/kunit branch for 5.11 yet, though.
Patch 2 will probably need to be acked by Ted for ext4 first.
Brendan, Shuah: can you make sure this doesn't get lost in patchwork?
Looks good to me. I would definitely like to pick this up. But yeah, in order to pick up 2/2 we will need an ack from either Ted or Iurii.
Ted seems to be busy right now, so I think I will just ask Shuah to go ahead and pick this patch up by itself and we or Ted can pick up patch 2/2 later.
Cheers
I am seeing
ERROR: need consistent spacing around '*' (ctx:WxV) #272: FILE: include/kunit/test.h:1786:
typeof((array)[0]) *__next = prev ? ((typeof(__next)) prev) + 1 :
(array); \ ^
Can you look into this and send v10?
This is a false positive. I pointed this out here before: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CANpmjNNhpe6TYt0KmBCCR-Wfz1Bxd8qnhiwegwnDQsxRAWmUM...
checkpatch.pl thinks this is a multiplication, but this is a pointer, so the spacing here is correct.
Thanks, -- Marco
thanks, -- Shuah
On 12/1/20 4:31 PM, Marco Elver wrote:
On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at 23:28, Shuah Khan skhan@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On 11/30/20 3:22 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 11:25 PM David Gow davidgow@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 9:08 PM Marco Elver elver@google.com wrote:
On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 at 08:21, David Gow davidgow@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 1:41 PM Arpitha Raghunandan 98.arpi@gmail.com wrote: > > Implementation of support for parameterized testing in KUnit. This > approach requires the creation of a test case using the > KUNIT_CASE_PARAM() macro that accepts a generator function as input. > > This generator function should return the next parameter given the > previous parameter in parameterized tests. It also provides a macro to > generate common-case generators based on arrays. Generators may also > optionally provide a human-readable description of parameters, which is > displayed where available. > > Note, currently the result of each parameter run is displayed in > diagnostic lines, and only the overall test case output summarizes > TAP-compliant success or failure of all parameter runs. In future, when > supported by kunit-tool, these can be turned into subsubtest outputs. > > Signed-off-by: Arpitha Raghunandan 98.arpi@gmail.com > Co-developed-by: Marco Elver elver@google.com > Signed-off-by: Marco Elver elver@google.com > --- [Resending this because my email client re-defaulted to HTML! Aarrgh!]
This looks good to me! I tested it in UML and x86-64 w/ KASAN, and both worked fine.
Reviewed-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com Tested-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com
Thank you!
Thanks for sticking with this!
Will these patches be landing in 5.11 or 5.12?
I can't think of any reason not to have these in 5.11. We haven't started staging things in the kselftest/kunit branch for 5.11 yet, though.
Patch 2 will probably need to be acked by Ted for ext4 first.
Brendan, Shuah: can you make sure this doesn't get lost in patchwork?
Looks good to me. I would definitely like to pick this up. But yeah, in order to pick up 2/2 we will need an ack from either Ted or Iurii.
Ted seems to be busy right now, so I think I will just ask Shuah to go ahead and pick this patch up by itself and we or Ted can pick up patch 2/2 later.
Cheers
I am seeing
ERROR: need consistent spacing around '*' (ctx:WxV) #272: FILE: include/kunit/test.h:1786:
typeof((array)[0]) *__next = prev ? ((typeof(__next)) prev) + 1 :
(array); \ ^
Can you look into this and send v10?
This is a false positive. I pointed this out here before: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CANpmjNNhpe6TYt0KmBCCR-Wfz1Bxd8qnhiwegwnDQsxRAWmUM...
checkpatch.pl thinks this is a multiplication, but this is a pointer, so the spacing here is correct.
Thank you for confirming. I will apply this.
thanks, -- Shuah
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 02:22:22PM -0800, 'Brendan Higgins' via KUnit Development wrote:
Looks good to me. I would definitely like to pick this up. But yeah, in order to pick up 2/2 we will need an ack from either Ted or Iurii.
Ted seems to be busy right now, so I think I will just ask Shuah to go ahead and pick this patch up by itself and we or Ted can pick up patch 2/2 later.
I have been paying attention to this patch series, but I had presumed that this was much more of a kunit change than an ext4 change, and the critical bits was a review of the kunit infrastructure. I certainly have no objection to changing the ext4 test to use the new parameterized testing, and if you'd like me to give a quick review, I'll take a quick look. I assume, Brendan, that you've already tried doing a compile and run test of the patch series, so I'm not going to do that?
- Ted
linux-kselftest-mirror@lists.linaro.org