[PATCH 1/1] Added tests to handle error string conditions in xe_sysfs_scheduler.c

[Piatkowski, Dominik Karol]

Hi Sobin,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas, Sobin <sobin.thomas at intel.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 7:03 PM
> To: igt-dev at lists.freedesktop.org
> Cc: Konieczny, Kamil <kamil.konieczny at intel.com>; Piatkowski, Dominik Karol
> <dominik.karol.piatkowski at intel.com>
> Subject: [PATCH 1/1] Added tests to handle error string conditions in
> xe_sysfs_scheduler.c

Just like in cover letter, please fix the subject for future submissions.

> 
> From: "Thomas, Sobin" <sobin.thomas at intel.com>

"From" field shouldn't be here.

The patch is missing commit description. Please fix it.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas, Sobin <sobin.thomas at intel.com>

I believe the formatting we use for name and surname inside tags is "Sobin Thomas".

> ---
>  tests/intel/xe_sysfs_scheduler.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/tests/intel/xe_sysfs_scheduler.c b/tests/intel/xe_sysfs_scheduler.c
> index 4fc764f82..a0eaad5ab 100644
> --- a/tests/intel/xe_sysfs_scheduler.c
> +++ b/tests/intel/xe_sysfs_scheduler.c
> @@ -10,6 +10,11 @@
>   * Sub-category: SysMan tests
>   * Functionality: scheduler control interface
>   *
> + * SUBTEST: %s-invalid-string
> + * Description: Test to check if %s arg[1] schedule parameter checks for
> + * min max values.

You need to indent this line, or build will fail.

> + * Test category: Negative string test
> + *
>   * SUBTEST: %s-invalid
>   * Description: Test to check if %s arg[1] schedule parameter rejects any
>   *		unrepresentable intervals.
> @@ -121,6 +126,23 @@ static void test_min_max(int xe, int engine, const
> char **property,
>  	igt_assert_eq(set, default_max);
>  }
> 
> +static void test_invalid_string(int xe, int engine, const char **property,
> +                         uint16_t class, int gt)

Please use tabs to indent code where possible (unless it's less than one tab worth of spaces after tabs for correct alignment).

> +{
> +	unsigned int saved, set;
> +	char invalid_input[] = "999abc"; //Intentionally passing wrong string

I think this comment is redundant.

> +
> +	for(int i=0;i<3;i++) {

There are missing spaces inside this statement. Please format it.

> +		igt_assert(igt_sysfs_scanf(engine,property[i],"%u",&saved) ==
> 1);

Same here.

> +		igt_info("Initial %s:%u\n",property[i],saved);

And here.

> +		igt_sysfs_printf(engine, property[i], "%s", invalid_input);
> +		igt_sysfs_scanf(engine,property[i],"%u",&set);

And here.

> +		igt_assert_eq(set,saved);

And here.

> +		igt_info("Property %s correctly rejected input
> %s\n",property[i],invalid_input);

And here.

Also, it would be a good idea to check return values of igt_sysfs_printf/igt_sysfs_scanf, for example checking if igt_sysfs_printf failed (returned negative value) - as I assume we expect it to fail. If second igt_sysfs_scanf fails, and we won't know about it, we will deal with uninitialized values, and that will be a headache of its own.

Thanks,
Dominik Karol

> +	}
> +}
> +
> +
>  #define MAX_GTS 8
>  igt_main
>  {
> @@ -130,6 +152,7 @@ igt_main
>  	} tests[] = {
>  		{ "invalid", test_invalid },
>  		{ "min-max", test_min_max },
> +		{ "invalid-string", test_invalid_string },
>  		{ }
>  	};
> 
> --
> 2.34.1