On 4/8/24 4:29 PM, Michal Koutný wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 02:37:44AM +0500, Muhammad Usama Anjum
> <usama.an...@collabora.com> wrote:
>> The
>> ksft_print_header();
>> ksft_set_plan(total_number_of_tests);
>> are missing. Please use all of the ksft APIs to make the test TAP compliant.
>
> Will do.
>
>>> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(tests); i++) {
>>> + switch (tests[i].fn(root)) {
>>> + case KSFT_PASS:
>>> + ksft_test_result_pass("%s\n", tests[i].name);
>>> + break;
>>> + case KSFT_SKIP:
>>> + ksft_test_result_skip("%s\n", tests[i].name);
>>> + break;
>>> + default:
>>> + ret = EXIT_FAILURE;
>>> + ksft_test_result_fail("%s\n", tests[i].name);
>>> + break;
>> Use ksft_test_result_report() instead of swith-case here.
>
> Do you mean ksft_test_result()? That one cannot distinguish the
> KSFT_SKIP case.
> Or ksft_test_result_code(tests[i].fn(root), tests[i].name)?
No, this doesn't seem useful here.
>
> Would the existing ksft_test_resul_*() calls inside switch-case still
> TAP-work?
This part of your switch-case are correct. It just that by using
ksft_test_result_report you can achieve the same thing. It has has SKIP
support.
ksft_test_result_report(tests[i].fn(root), tests[i].name)
>
> Thanks,
> Michal
--
BR,
Muhammad Usama Anjum
