[PATCH v14 01/18] kunit: test: add KUnit test runner core

[shuah]

On 8/23/19 11:27 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 10:05 AM shuah <shuah at kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 8/23/19 10:48 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 8:33 AM shuah <shuah at kernel.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Brendan,
>>>>
>>>> On 8/20/19 5:20 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>>>> Add core facilities for defining unit tests; this provides a common way
>>>>> to define test cases, functions that execute code which is under test
>>>>> and determine whether the code under test behaves as expected; this also
>>>>> provides a way to group together related test cases in test suites (here
>>>>> we call them test_modules).
>>>>>
>>>>> Just define test cases and how to execute them for now; setting
>>>>> expectations on code will be defined later.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins at google.com>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh at linuxfoundation.org>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Logan Gunthorpe <logang at deltatee.com>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof at kernel.org>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd at kernel.org>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>     include/kunit/test.h | 179 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>     kunit/Kconfig        |  17 ++++
>>>>>     kunit/Makefile       |   1 +
>>>>>     kunit/test.c         | 191 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>     4 files changed, 388 insertions(+)
>>>>>     create mode 100644 include/kunit/test.h
>>>>>     create mode 100644 kunit/Kconfig
>>>>>     create mode 100644 kunit/Makefile
>>>>>     create mode 100644 kunit/test.c
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h
>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>> index 0000000000000..e0b34acb9ee4e
>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>> +++ b/include/kunit/test.h
>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,179 @@
>>>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
>>>>> +/*
>>>>> + * Base unit test (KUnit) API.
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2019, Google LLC.
>>>>> + * Author: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins at google.com>
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#ifndef _KUNIT_TEST_H
>>>>> +#define _KUNIT_TEST_H
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#include <linux/types.h>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +struct kunit;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +/**
>>>>> + * struct kunit_case - represents an individual test case.
>>>>> + * @run_case: the function representing the actual test case.
>>>>> + * @name: the name of the test case.
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * A test case is a function with the signature, ``void (*)(struct kunit *)``
>>>>> + * that makes expectations (see KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE()) about code under test. Each
>>>>> + * test case is associated with a &struct kunit_suite and will be run after the
>>>>> + * suite's init function and followed by the suite's exit function.
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * A test case should be static and should only be created with the KUNIT_CASE()
>>>>> + * macro; additionally, every array of test cases should be terminated with an
>>>>> + * empty test case.
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * Example:
>>>>
>>>> Can you fix these line continuations. It makes it very hard to read.
>>>> Sorry for this late comment. These comments lines are longer than 80
>>>> and wrap.
>>>
>>> None of the lines in this commit are over 80 characters in column
>>> width. Some are exactly 80 characters (like above).
>>>
>>> My guess is that you are seeing the diff added text (+ ), which when
>>> you add that to a line which is exactly 80 char in length ends up
>>> being over 80 char in email. If you apply the patch you will see that
>>> they are only 80 chars.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are several comment lines in the file that are way too long.
>>>
>>> Note that checkpatch also does not complain about any over 80 char
>>> lines in this file.
>>>
>>> Sorry if I am misunderstanding what you are trying to tell me. Please
>>> confirm either way.
>>>
>>
>> WARNING: Avoid unnecessary line continuations
>> #258: FILE: include/kunit/test.h:137:
>> +                */                                                            \
>>
>> total: 0 errors, 2 warnings, 388 lines checked
> 
> Ah, okay so you don't like the warning about the line continuation.
> That's not because it is over 80 char, but because there is a line
> continuation after a comment. I don't really see a way to get rid of
> it without removing the comment from inside the macro.
> 
> I put this TODO there in the first place a Luis' request, and I put it
> in the body of the macro because this macro already had a kernel-doc
> comment and I didn't think that an implementation detail TODO belonged
> in the user documentation.
> 
>> Go ahead fix these. It appears there are few lines that either longer
>> than 80. In general, I keep them around 75, so it is easier read.
> 
> Sorry, the above is the only checkpatch warning other than the
> reminder to update the MAINTAINERS file.
> 
> Are you saying you want me to go through and make all the lines fit in
> 75 char column width? I hope not because that is going to be a pretty
> substantial change to make.
> 

There are two things with these comment lines. One is checkpatch
complaining and the other is general readability.

Please go ahead and adjust them.

thanks,
-- Shuah