Dear Akhil, W dniu 01.04.2020 o 19:09, Akhil Goyal pisze: > Hi Lukasz, > > >> This patch introduces set of unit tests of librte_security API functions. >> Tests are added to dpdk-test application and can be run with >> "security_autotest" runtime command. >> >> This is the first patch in the series of patches as adding all test cases >> for all API functions in a single patch would make it unreadable. >> >> This patch defines structure of the file and necessary test framework >> initialization. It also contains first subset of unit tests for >> rte_security_session_create API function. >> >> Structure of the tests file is following: >> - macros for making tests more readable; >> - mockup structures and functions for rte_security_ops; >> - test suite and test cases setup and teardown functions; >> - tests functions; >> - declaration of testcases. >> >> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Wojciechowski <l.wojciec...@partner.samsung.com> >> Change-Id: I3a4585f56ef1a75b2984fcea3a3e4a30e4c2d8a6 >> --- > This patchset has a lot of repeated(for each API) tests just to check the > input parameters to > Rte_security APIs. I am not sure what value addition is done to separate out > each API as a separate > Negative Test. Instead a single case can be added to test all APIs with > inappropriate arguments. > We should add more positive cases with proper session parameters. > > Thomas, > Do we allow these type of test cases in other modules? > > Regards, > Akhil As I already replied to you and Thomas, my primary intention was to make fixes to rte_security lib.
And as I did, I wanted to cover them also with unit tests. And as these are unit tests, there is plenty of them and all they do is to verify input parameters and check if proper functions are running and the code exists function in proper places with proper return values. So they verify the flow inside each API function. In my opinion it is best to have a single testcase to check single function flow with set conditions. So if anything fails in the future, you will know exactly what and why. As the unit tests verify flow of the function, usualy they can fail in many ways, but the "proper" path to execute a function is only one, so there are much less positive testcases. Maybe more positive testcases you can see in the last patch containing tests for rte_security_capability_get. There are many testcases showing matches of capabilities to different patterns. What you would like to have are functional tests not only for librte_security but together with its usage. I agree that would be nice to have such tests also, but those wouldn't test rte_security by itself, they would test its usage and that's completely different thing and that's not what these patches provide. I'll check more modules to see how the tests look like there and I'll take a look at eventdev-tests, that Thomas mentioned. Best regards Lukasz -- Lukasz Wojciechowski Principal Software Engineer Samsung R&D Institute Poland Samsung Electronics Office +48 22 377 88 25 l.wojciec...@partner.samsung.com
