Re: [RFC v3 18/19] of: unittest: split out a couple of test cases from unittest

[Frank Rowand]

On 3/21/19 6:30 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 5:22 PM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 2/27/19 7:52 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:

< snip >  but thanks for the comments in the snipped section.


>>
>> Thanks for leaving 18/19 and 19/19 off in v4.
> 
> Sure, no problem. It was pretty clear that it was a waste of both of
> our times to continue discussing those at this juncture. :-)
> 
> Do you still want me to try to convert the DT not-exactly-unittest to
> KUnit? I would kind of prefer (I don't feel *super* strongly about the
> matter) we don't call it that since I was intending for it to be the
> flagship initial example, but I certainly don't mind trying to clean
> this patch up to get it up to snuff. It's really just a question of
> whether it is worth it to you.

In the long term, if KUnit is adopted by the kernel, then I think it
probably makes sense for devicetree unittest to convert from using
our own unittest() function to report an individual test pass/fail
to instead use something like KUNIT_EXPECT_*() to provide more
consistent test messages to test frameworks.  That is assuming
KUNIT_EXPECT_*() provides comparable functionality.  I still have
not looked into that question since the converted tests (patch 15/17
in v4) still does not execute without throwing internal errors.

If that conversion occurred, I would also avoid the ASSERTs.

> 
> < snip >
> 
> Cheers!
>