Re: [RFC v2 01/14] kunit: test: add KUnit test runner core

[Shuah Khan]

On 11/06/2018 06:28 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 11:44 AM Shuah Khan <shuah@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/23/2018 05:57 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> <snip>
>>> + * Example:
>>> + *
>>> + * .. code-block:: c
>>> + *
>>> + *   void add_test_basic(struct test *test)
>>> + *   {
>>> + *           TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, 1, add(1, 0));
>>> + *           TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, 2, add(1, 1));
>>> + *           TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, add(-1, 1));
>>> + *           TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, INT_MAX, add(0, INT_MAX));
>>> + *           TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, -1, add(INT_MAX, INT_MIN));
>>> + *   }
>>> + *
>>> + *   static struct test_case example_test_cases[] = {
>>> + *           TEST_CASE(add_test_basic),
>>> + *           {},
>>> + *   };
>>> + *
>>> + */
>>> +struct test_case {
>>> +     void (*run_case)(struct test *test);
>>> +     const char name[256];
>>> +
>>> +     /* private: internal use only. */
>>> +     bool success;
>>> +};
>>> +
>>
>> Introducing a prefix kunit_* might be a good idea for the API.
>> This comment applies to the rest of patches as well.
> 
> What about kunit_* instead of test_* and kmock_* instead of mock_*?
> Does that seem reasonable?
> 

kunit_* would work well.

thanks,
-- Shuah