t; --alltests
>
> Note that this does overlap a little with the new running_tips page. I
> don't think it's a problem having both: this page is supposed to be a
> bit more of a reference, rather than a list of useful tips, so the fact
> that they both describe the same fe
includes a clever `kfree_at_end()` helper that makes this test
easier to write than it otherwise would have been.
Tested by running just the new tests using itself
$ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run '*exec*'
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
Reviewed-by: David Gow
---
v1 -> v2
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 5:33 PM Daniel Latypov wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 11:41 PM David Gow wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 3:07 AM Daniel Latypov wrote:
> > >
> > > Add basic test coverage for files that don't require any config options
nteresting, but they
* provide short and simple examples of parameterized tests
* provide a place to add tests for any new files in this dir
* are written so adding new test cases to cover edge cases should be easy
* looking at code coverage, we hit all the branches in the .c files
Signed-off-by:
ot using uml_abort() in os_dump_core().
I've documented these hacks in "Notes" but left TODOs for
brendanhigg...@google.com who tracked down the runtime issue in GCC.
To be clear: these are not issues specific to KUnit, but rather to UML.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
Reviewed
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 9:22 PM David Gow wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 8:45 AM Daniel Latypov wrote:
> >
> > This is long overdue.
> >
> > There are several things that aren't nailed down (in-tree
> > .kunitconfig's), or partially broken (GCOV
it seemed worth at least having something. Hopefully
> this can form the basis for more detailed documentation later.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Gow
Reviewed-by: Daniel Latypov
Looks good to me. Some minor typos and nits about wording here and there.
> ---
> Thanks, everyone, for t
ot using uml_abort() in os_dump_core().
I've documented these hacks in "Notes" but left TODOs for
brendanhigg...@google.com who tracked down the runtime issue in GCC.
To be clear: these are not issues specific to KUnit, but rather to UML.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
---
v2 ->
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 11:41 PM David Gow wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 3:07 AM Daniel Latypov wrote:
> >
> > Add basic test coverage for files that don't require any config options:
> > * part of math.h (what seem to be the most commonly used ma
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 10:00 PM David Gow wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 8:08 AM Daniel Latypov wrote:
> >
> > This adds unit tests for kunit_filter_subsuite() and
> > kunit_filter_suites().
> >
> > Note: what the executor means by "subsuite" is
error whenever slab_bug() or slab_fix() is called or when
> the count of pages is wrong.
>
> Signed-off-by: Oliver Glitta
Acked-by: Daniel Latypov
Looks good to me!
My one minor suggestion: perhaps let's log a summary of the error or
the func name in slab_add_kunit_errors().
>
ot using uml_abort() in os_dump_core().
I've documented these hacks in "Notes" but left TODOs for
brendanhigg...@google.com who tracked down the runtime issue in GCC.
To be clear: these are not issues specific to KUnit, but rather to UML.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
---
D
includes a clever `kfree_at_end()` helper that makes this test
easier to write than it otherwise would have been.
Tested by running just the new tests using itself
$ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run '*exec*'
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
---
lib/kunit/executor.c | 26
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 1:42 PM Brendan Higgins
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 10:27 AM Daniel Latypov wrote:
> >
> > hOn Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 9:10 PM David Gow wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks for writing this: it's good to have these things documen
nteresting, but they
* provide short and simple examples of parameterized tests
* provide a place to add tests for any new files in this dir
* are written so adding new test cases to cover edge cases should be easy
* looking at code coverage, we hit all the branches in the .c files
Signed-off-by:
of the
world ~somewhere.
But it did feel a bit strange to do it here, so I'm not against removing it.
>
> Otherwise, a few minor comments and nitpicks:
>
> -- David
>
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 2:01 AM Daniel Latypov wrote:
> >
> > This is long overdue.
> >
&
On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 12:05 AM David Gow wrote:
>
> The kernel now has a number of testing and debugging tools, and we've
> seen a bit of confusion about what the differences between them are.
>
> Add a basic documentation outlining the testing tools, when to use each,
> and how they interact.
>
.@google.com who tracked down the runtime issue in GCC.
To be clear: these are not issues specific to KUnit, but rather to UML.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
---
Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/index.rst | 1 +
.../dev-tools/kunit/running_tips.rst | 278 ++
Docume
On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 8:30 AM Andy Shevchenko
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 06:40:01PM -0700, Daniel Latypov wrote:
> > Add basic test coverage for files that don't require any config options:
> > * gcd.c
> > * lcm.c
> > * int_sqrt.c
> > * reciproca
meterized tests
* provide a place to add tests for any new files in this dir
* are written so adding new test cases to cover edge cases should be easy
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
---
Changes since v3:
* fix `checkpatch.pl --strict` warnings
* add test cases for gcd(0,0) and lcm(0,0)
* minor: don&#x
On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 3:30 AM Marco Elver wrote:
>
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 at 12:57, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 4/1/21 11:24 PM, Marco Elver wrote:
> > > On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 21:04, Daniel Latypov wrote:
> > >> > }
> >
mple of kunit_fail_current_test().
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
---
Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/tips.rst | 78 +-
1 file changed, 76 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/tips.rst
b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/tips.rst
index a6ca0af1
Thanks for the catch.
Should be addressed by
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20210406172901.1729216-1-dlaty...@google.com/
When I was testing the CONFIG_KUNIT=n case, I added it to a file that
wasn't being compiled (CONFIG_UBSAN=y is not sufficient for
lib/ubsan.c to be compiled...).
On T
When CONFIG_KUNIT is not enabled, __kunit_fail_current_test() an empty
static function.
But GCC complains about unused static functions, *unless* they're static inline.
So add inline to make GCC happy.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
Fixes: 359a376081d4 ("kunit: support failure fr
On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 10:53 AM Shuah Khan wrote:
>
> On 4/2/21 2:55 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 7:23 AM Daniel Latypov wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Uriel Guajardo
> >>
> >> Add a kunit_fail_current_test() function to fail
sage
[15:19:34] not ok 1 - example_simple_test
Co-developed-by: Daniel Latypov
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
Signed-off-by: Uriel Guajardo
Reviewed-by: Alan Maguire
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins
---
include/kunit/test-bug.h | 29 +
lib/kunit/test.c | 39 ++
() as well, so
there's some slight duplication, but it also ensures an error is
recorded in the debugfs entry for the running KUnit test.
Print a shorter version of the message to make it less spammy.
Co-developed-by: Daniel Latypov
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
Signed-off-by: Uriel Gua
v1 by Uriel is here: [1].
Since it's been a while, I've dropped the Reviewed-By's.
It depended on commit 83c4e7a0363b ("KUnit: KASAN Integration") which
hadn't been merged yet, so that caused some kerfuffle with applying them
previously and the series was reverted.
This revives the series but mak
On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 12:19 PM Shuah Khan wrote:
>
> On 4/2/21 1:09 PM, Daniel Latypov wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 10:47 AM Shuah Khan
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 4/2/21 3:35 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 2:1
CT_STREQ(test, "hello", "world")
since we don't expect it to realistically happen in checked in tests.
(If you really wanted a test to fail, KUNIT_FAIL("msg") exists)
In that case, you'd get:
> Expected "hello" == "world", but
Signe
e can give that as an
> >> example more close to home (and thus less likely to be accidentally
> >> broken).
> >>
> >> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/ycnf4yp1db97z...@mit.edu/
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
> >
> > Reviewe
On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 10:47 AM Shuah Khan wrote:
>
> On 4/2/21 3:35 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 2:18 PM Daniel Latypov wrote:
> >>
> >> Before:
> >>> Expected str == "world", but
> >>> str == hell
On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 2:16 AM 'Marco Elver' via KUnit Development
wrote:
>
> [Note, if you'd like me to see future versions, please Cc me, otherwise
> it's unlikely I see it in time. Also add kunit-...@googlegroups.com if
> perhaps a KUnit dev should have another look, too.]
>
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2
() as well, so
there's some slight duplication, but it also ensures an error is
recorded in the debugfs entry for the running KUnit test.
Print a shorter version of the message to make it less spammy.
Co-developed-by: Daniel Latypov
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
Signed-off-by: Uriel Gua
v1 by Uriel is here: [1].
Since it's been a while, I've dropped the Reviewed-By's.
It depended on commit 83c4e7a0363b ("KUnit: KASAN Integration") which
hadn't been merged yet, so that caused some kerfuffle with applying them
previously and the series was reverted.
This revives the series but mak
sage
[15:19:34] not ok 1 - example_simple_test
Co-developed-by: Daniel Latypov
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
Signed-off-by: Uriel Guajardo
Reviewed-by: Alan Maguire
---
include/kunit/test-bug.h | 30 ++
lib/kunit/test.c | 39 +++
2
an error only mypy cares about, this
fix does make the code more stylistically correct and should
definitely go in.
>
> Fixes 97752c39bd ("kunit: kunit_tool: Allow .kunitconfig to disable config
> items")
> Signed-off-by: David Gow
Reviewed-by: Daniel Latypov
>
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 6:33 PM Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 05:32:06PM -0800, Daniel Latypov wrote:
> >
> > After [2]:
> > $ ./tools/testing/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=fs/ext4/.kunitconfig
>
> Any chance that in the future this might bec
ext4
Also add in such a fragment for kunit itself so we can give that as an
example more close to home (and thus less likely to be accidentally
broken).
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/ycnf4yp1db97z...@mit.edu/
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
---
lib/kunit/.kunitconfig | 3
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 1:33 PM 'Brendan Higgins' via KUnit
Development wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 12:58 PM Daniel Latypov wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 7:40 AM Alan Maguire
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 11 Feb 2021, David G
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 7:40 AM Alan Maguire wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2021, David Gow wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 6:14 AM Daniel Latypov wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Uriel Guajardo
> > >
> > > Add a kunit_fail_current_test() function to
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 6:33 PM Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 05:32:06PM -0800, Daniel Latypov wrote:
> >
> > After [2]:
> > $ ./tools/testing/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=fs/ext4/.kunitconfig
>
> Any chance that in the future this might bec
test.git/commit/?h=kunit&id=243180f5924ed27ea417db39feb7f9691777688e
* 372/5556 directories isn't too much, but still not a small number:
$ find -type f -name 'k*' | xargs dirname | sort -u | wc -l
372
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
---
fs/ext4/.kunitconfig | 3 +++
1 file cha
sage
[15:19:34] not ok 1 - example_simple_test
Co-developed-by: Daniel Latypov
Signed-off-by: Uriel Guajardo
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
---
include/kunit/test-bug.h | 30 ++
lib/kunit/test.c | 37 +
2 files changed, 63 insertions(+),
v1 by Uriel is here: [1].
Since it's been a while, I've dropped the Reviewed-By's.
It depended on commit 83c4e7a0363b ("KUnit: KASAN Integration") which
hadn't been merged yet, so that caused some kerfuffle with applying them
previously and the series was reverted.
This revives the series but mak
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 2:12 PM Alan Maguire wrote:
>
> On Tue, 9 Feb 2021, Daniel Latypov wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 9:26 AM Alan Maguire wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 5 Feb 2021, Daniel Latypov wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: Uriel G
() as well, so
there's some slight duplication, but it also ensures an error is
recorded in the debugfs entry for the running KUnit test.
Print a shorter version of the message to make it less spammy.
Co-developed-by: Daniel Latypov
Signed-off-by: Uriel Guajardo
Signed-off-by: Daniel La
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 9:26 AM Alan Maguire wrote:
>
> On Fri, 5 Feb 2021, Daniel Latypov wrote:
>
> > From: Uriel Guajardo
> >
> > Add a kunit_fail_current_test() function to fail the currently running
> > test, if any, with an error message.
> >
&
p suggests 100+ comparisons to an integer literal as the
right hand side.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
Tested-by: David Gow
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins
---
lib/kunit/assert.c | 39 +--
1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/kunit/
which currently only supports filtering by suite name.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins
---
tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py | 21 -
tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py| 4 +++-
tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py | 15 +--
3 files
unit tool only calls run_kernel() at most once, so
it's not possible to trigger any negative side-effects right now.
Fixes: 6ebf5866f2e8 ("kunit: tool: add Python wrappers for running KUnit tests")
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins
---
tools/testing/
> v2:
Fix free of `suites` subarray in suite_set.
Found by Dan Carpenter and kernel test robot.
v2 -> v3:
Add MODULE_PARM_DESC() for kunit.filter_glob.
v3 -> v4:
Rebase on top of kunit_tool_test.py and typing fixes for merging.
Daniel Latypov (3):
kunit: add kunit.filter_glob c
() as well, so
there's some slight duplication, but it also ensures an error is
recorded in the debugfs entry for the running KUnit test.
Print a shorter version of the message to make it less spammy.
Co-developed-by: Daniel Latypov
Signed-off-by: Uriel Guajardo
Signed-off-by: Daniel La
lter_glob=list-kunit-test.*del*
But at the moment, it's far easier to manually comment out test cases in
test files as opposed to messing with sets of Kconfig entries to select
specific suites.
So even just doing this makes using kunit far less annoying.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
Reviewed-
t ok 1 - example_simple_test
Co-developed-by: Daniel Latypov
Signed-off-by: Uriel Guajardo
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
---
include/kunit/test-bug.h | 30 ++
lib/kunit/test.c | 36
2 files changed, 62 insertions(+),
CT_STREQ(test, "hello", "world")
since we don't expect it to realistically happen in checked in tests.
(If you really wanted a test to fail, KUNIT_FAIL("msg") exists)
In that case, you'd get:
> Expected "hello" == "world", but
Sign
v1 by Uriel is here: [1].
Since it's been a while, I've dropped the Reviewed-By's.
It depended on commit 83c4e7a0363b ("KUnit: KASAN Integration") which
hadn't been merged yet, so that caused some kerfuffle with applying them
previously and the series was reverted.
This revives the series but mak
unit tool only calls run_kernel() at most once, so
it's not possible to trigger any negative side-effects right now.
Fixes: 6ebf5866f2e8 ("kunit: tool: add Python wrappers for running KUnit tests")
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins
---
tools/testing/
which currently only supports filtering by suite name.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins
---
tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py| 21 -
tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py | 4 +++-
2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/
lter_glob=list-kunit-test.*del*
But at the moment, it's far easier to manually comment out test cases in
test files as opposed to messing with sets of Kconfig entries to select
specific suites.
So even just doing this makes using kunit far less annoying.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
Reviewed-
> v2:
Fix free of `suites` subarray in suite_set.
Found by Dan Carpenter and kernel test robot.
v2 -> v3:
Add MODULE_PARM_DESC() for kunit.filter_glob.
Daniel Latypov (3):
kunit: add kunit.filter_glob cmdline option to filter suites
kunit: tool: add support for filtering suites by glob
On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 11:13 PM Dan Carpenter wrote:
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
> url:
> https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Daniel-Latypov/kunit-support-running-subsets-of-test-suites-from/20210204-074405
> base: 88bb507a74ea7d75fa49edd421eaa710a7d80598
> config: x86_64-ran
lter_glob=list-kunit-test.*del*
But at the moment, it's far easier to manually comment out test cases in
test files as opposed to messing with sets of Kconfig entries to select
specific suites.
So even just doing this makes using kunit far less annoying.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
---
lib
unit tool only calls run_kernel() at most once, so
it's not possible to trigger any negative side-effects right now.
Fixes: 6ebf5866f2e8 ("kunit: tool: add Python wrappers for running KUnit tests")
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
---
tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py | 4 +++-
1 file
which currently only supports filtering by suite name.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
---
tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py| 21 -
tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py | 4 +++-
2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py b/tool
> v2:
Fix free of `suites` subarray in suite_set.
Found by Dan Carpenter and kernel test robot.
Daniel Latypov (3):
kunit: add kunit.filter_glob cmdline option to filter suites
kunit: tool: add support for filtering suites by glob
kunit: tool: fix unintentional state
unit tool only calls run_kernel() at most once, so
it's not possible to trigger any negative side-effects right now.
Fixes: 6ebf5866f2e8 ("kunit: tool: add Python wrappers for running KUnit tests")
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
---
tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py | 4 +++-
1 file
which currently only supports filtering by suite name.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
---
tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py| 21 -
tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py | 4 +++-
2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py b/tool
details and discussion about
future work.
This patch series also includes a bugfix for a latent bug that can't be
triggered right now but has worse consequences as a result of the
changes needed to plumb in this suite name glob.
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/2021020120551
lter_glob=list-kunit-test.*del*
But at the moment, it's far easier to manually comment out test cases in
test files as opposed to messing with sets of Kconfig entries to select
specific suites.
So even just doing this makes using kunit far less annoying.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
---
lib
ts live in the same directory as the
code-under-test, so it feels more natural to allow the kunitconfig
fragments to live anywhere. (Though, people could create a separate
directory if wanted; this patch imposes no restrictions on the path).
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
---
Changes since v1: cha
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 8:51 PM David Gow wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 10:26 AM Daniel Latypov wrote:
> >
> > Currently, given something (fairly dystopian) like
> > > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 2 + 2, 5)
> >
> > KUnit will prints a failure message lik
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 10:33 PM David Gow wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 8:17 AM Daniel Latypov wrote:
> >
> > Currently running tests via KUnit tool means tweaking a .kunitconfig
> > file, which you'd keep around locally and never commit.
> > This chan
p suggests 100+ comparisons to an integer literal as the
right hand side.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
---
lib/kunit/assert.c | 39 +--
1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/kunit/assert.c b/lib/kunit/assert.c
index 33acdaa28a7d
it_kzalloc() instead of kzalloc() so you
don't have to worry about calling kfree() yourself" and the like.
Change start.rst to point users to this new page first and let them know
that usage.rst is more of optional further reading.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
---
Documentation/dev-tools/k
n the same directory as the
code-under-test, so it feels more natural to allow the kunitconfig
fragments to live anywhere. (Though, people could create a separate
directory if wanted; this patch imposes no restrictions on the path).
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
---
tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py
The primary change is that we want to encourage people to respect
KUNIT_ALL_TESTS to make it easy to run all the relevant tests for a
given config.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
---
Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/start.rst | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a
meterized tests
* provide a place to add tests for any new files in this dir
* are written so adding new test cases to cover edge cases should be easy
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
---
Changes since v2: mv math_test.c => math_kunit.c
Changes since v1:
* Rebase and rewrite to use the new par
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 2:36 AM Andy Shevchenko
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 10:27:00AM -0800, Daniel Latypov wrote:
> > Add basic test coverage for files that don't require any config options:
> > * gcd.c
> > * lcm.c
> > * int_sqrt.c
> > * reciproca
f them is empty").
Also slightly simplify the code and add type annotations.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
Reviewed-by: David Gow
---
tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py | 17 -
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser
might not need/want to load the config.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins
---
tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py| 20
tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py | 25 +
2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
diff --git
quests, which mypy isn't happy about.
This commit fixes all but one error, where `TestSuite.status` might be
None.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
Reviewed-by: David Gow
---
Changes since v1: none here, reworked last patch.
Changes since v2: rebased onto torvalds/master.
Changes since v3:
les in this dir
* are written so adding new test cases to cover edge cases should be easy
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
---
Changes since v1:
* Rebase and rewrite to use the new parameterized testing support.
* misc: fix overflow in literal and inline int_sqrt format string.
* related: comm
f them is empty").
Also slightly simplify the code and add type annotations.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
Reviewed-by: David Gow
---
tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py | 17 -
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser
might not need/want to load the config.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
---
tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py| 20
tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py | 25 +
2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py
quests, which mypy isn't happy about.
This commit fixes all but one error, where `TestSuite.status` might be
None.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
Reviewed-by: David Gow
---
tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py| 14 -
tools/testing/kunit/kunit_config.py | 7 +++--
tools/testing/kun
ture.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
---
Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst | 57 +
1 file changed, 57 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst
b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst
index d9fdc14f0677..650f99590df5 100644
--- a/Documenta
On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 11:23 PM David Gow wrote:
>
> When a number of tests fail, it can be useful to get higher-level
> statistics of how many tests are failing (or how many parameters are
> failing in parameterised tests), and in what cases or suites. This is
> already done by some non-KUnit te
might not need/want to load the config.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
---
tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py| 20
tools/testing/kunit/kunit_kernel.py | 25 +
2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py
quests, which mypy isn't happy about.
This commit fixes all but one error, where `TestSuite.status` might be
None.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
Reviewed-by: David Gow
---
tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py| 14 -
tools/testing/kunit/kunit_config.py | 7 +++--
tools/testing/kun
f them is empty").
Also slightly simplify the code and add type annotations.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
Reviewed-by: David Gow
---
tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py | 17 -
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser
Don't use an O(nm) algorithm* and make it more readable by using a dict.
*Most obviously, it does a nested for-loop over the entire other config.
A bit more subtle, it calls .entries(), which constructs a set from the
list for _every_ outer iteration.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
---
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 7:57 PM David Gow wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 3:41 AM Daniel Latypov wrote:
> >
> > LinuxSourceTree will unceremoniously crash if the user doesn't call
> > read_kunitconfig() first in a number of functions.
>
> This patch seems to p
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 8:17 PM David Gow wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 3:41 AM Daniel Latypov wrote:
> >
>
> This seems good to me, but I have a few questions, particularly around
> the description.
>
> > The code to handle aggregating statuses didn't che
add type annotations.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
---
tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py | 17 -
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py
b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py
index 24954bbc9baf..97e070506c31 100644
--- a
quests, which mypy isn't happy about.
This commit fixes all but one error, where `TestSuite.status` might be
None.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
---
tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py| 14 -
tools/testing/kunit/kunit_config.py | 7 +++--
tools/testing/kunit/kunit_json.py | 2
forgotten and to
reduce copy-paste.
The https://github.com/google/pytype type-checker complained that
_config wasn't initialized. With this, kunit_tool now type checks
under both pytype and mypy.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
---
tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py| 20
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 7:05 PM David Gow wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 3:09 AM Daniel Latypov wrote:
> >
> > * Stop leaking file objects.
> > * Use self.addCleanup() to ensure we call cleanup functions even if
> > setUp() fails.
> > * use mock.patch.stopal
On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 8:41 PM David Gow wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 3:00 AM Daniel Latypov wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 11:33 PM David Gow wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 7:33 AM Daniel Latypov wrote:
> > > >
> >
* Stop leaking file objects.
* Use self.addCleanup() to ensure we call cleanup functions even if
setUp() fails.
* use mock.patch.stopall instead of more error-prone manual approach
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
---
tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py | 14 ++
1 file changed, 6
1 - 100 of 159 matches
Mail list logo
