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, 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:
> > >> > }
> >
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, 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
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 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
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
>
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
> 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
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-
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/
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.
> >
&
() 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 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
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: Uriel Guajardo
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
---
include/kunit/test-bug.h | 30 ++
lib/kunit/test.c | 37 +
2 files changed, 63 insertions(+),
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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.
> >
&
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:
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
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
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
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().
>
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
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
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 ->
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
.@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 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.
>
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
ad.
Fixes: 5578d008d9e0 ("kunit: tool: fix running kunit_tool from outside kernel
tree")
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
---
tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py | 15 +++
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
b
* 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
t this way.
* This is probably a misunderstanding from the docs which uses it
since `mock.call` is in scope as `call`.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
---
tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py | 50 +-
1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
diff --git a/too
The use of manual open() and .close() calls seems to be an attempt to
keep the contents in scope.
But Python doesn't restrict variables like that, so we can introduce new
variables inside of a `with` and use them outside.
Do so to make the code more Pythonic.
Signed-off-by: Daniel La
1. the name is a lie. It gives relative paths, e.g. if I run from the
same dir as the test file, it gives './test_data/'
2. it's only used for generating paths to tools/testing/kunit/test_data/
So we can tersen things by making it less general.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
---
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 10:32 AM Brendan Higgins
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 1:37 PM Daniel Latypov wrote:
> >
> > usage.rst goes into a detailed about faking out classes, but currently
> > lacks wording about how one might idiomatically test a range of inputs.
&g
rused at the moment, only appearing in 2
tests (both written by people involved in KUnit).
[1] not even on
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/dev-tools/kunit/api/test.html
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
---
Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst | 83 +++--
1 file changed, 77 i
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
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 Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 11:33 PM David Gow wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 7:33 AM Daniel Latypov wrote:
> >
> > The use of manual open() and .close() calls seems to be an attempt to
> > keep the contents in scope.
> > But Python doesn't restrict variables
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 11:33 PM David Gow wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 7:33 AM Daniel Latypov wrote:
> >
> > get_absolute_path() makes an attempt to allow for this.
> > But that doesn't work as soon as os.chdir() gets called.
>
> Can we explain why
The use of manual open() and .close() calls seems to be an attempt to
keep the contents in scope.
But Python doesn't restrict variables like that, so we can introduce new
variables inside of a `with` and use them outside.
Do so to make the code more Pythonic.
Signed-off-by: Daniel La
* 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
t this way.
* This is probably a misunderstanding from the docs which uses it
since `mock.call` is in scope as `call`.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
---
tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py | 50 +-
1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
diff --git a/too
nel
tree")
Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov
---
tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py | 60 +++---
1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py
index cf160914bc55..1cd127b225a9 10
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:
> > > >
> >
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
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
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
() 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
1 - 100 of 159 matches
Mail list logo
