Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] kunit: Support for Parameterized Testing

[Marco Elver]

On Sat, 7 Nov 2020 at 05:58, David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 7, 2020 at 3:22 AM Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Implementation of support for parameterized testing in KUnit.
> > This approach requires the creation of a test case using the
> > KUNIT_CASE_PARAM macro that accepts a generator function as input.
> > This generator function should return the next parameter given the
> > previous parameter in parameterized tests. It also provides
> > a macro to generate common-case generators.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Co-developed-by: Marco Elver <elver@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <elver@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
>
> This looks good to me! A couple of minor thoughts about the output
> format below, but I'm quite happy to have this as-is regardless.
>
> Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Cheers,
> -- David
>
> > Changes v5->v6:
> > - Fix alignment to maintain consistency
> > Changes v4->v5:
> > - Update kernel-doc comments.
> > - Use const void* for generator return and prev value types.
> > - Add kernel-doc comment for KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM.
> > - Rework parameterized test case execution strategy: each parameter is executed
> >   as if it was its own test case, with its own test initialization and cleanup
> >   (init and exit are called, etc.). However, we cannot add new test cases per TAP
> >   protocol once we have already started execution. Instead, log the result of
> >   each parameter run as a diagnostic comment.
> > Changes v3->v4:
> > - Rename kunit variables
> > - Rename generator function helper macro
> > - Add documentation for generator approach
> > - Display test case name in case of failure along with param index
> > Changes v2->v3:
> > - Modifictaion of generator macro and method
> > Changes v1->v2:
> > - Use of a generator method to access test case parameters
> >
> >  include/kunit/test.h | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  lib/kunit/test.c     | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> >  2 files changed, 69 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h
> > index db1b0ae666c4..16616d3974f9 100644
> > --- a/include/kunit/test.h
> > +++ b/include/kunit/test.h
> > @@ -107,6 +107,7 @@ struct kunit;
[...]
> > -       kunit_suite_for_each_test_case(suite, test_case)
> > -               kunit_run_case_catch_errors(suite, test_case);
> > +       kunit_suite_for_each_test_case(suite, test_case) {
> > +               struct kunit test = { .param_value = NULL, .param_index = 0 };
> > +               bool test_success = true;
> > +
> > +               if (test_case->generate_params)
> > +                       test.param_value = test_case->generate_params(NULL);
> > +
> > +               do {
> > +                       kunit_run_case_catch_errors(suite, test_case, &test);
> > +                       test_success &= test_case->success;
> > +
> > +                       if (test_case->generate_params) {
> > +                               kunit_log(KERN_INFO, &test,
> > +                                         KUNIT_SUBTEST_INDENT
> > +                                         "# %s: param-%d %s",
>
> Would it make sense to have this imitate the TAP format a bit more?
> So, have "# [ok|not ok] - [name]" as the format? [name] could be
> something like "[test_case->name]:param-[index]" or similar.
> If we keep it commented out and don't indent it further, it won't
> formally be a nested test (though if we wanted to support those later,
> it'd be easy to add), but I think it would be nicer to be consistent
> here.

The previous attempt [1] at something similar failed because it seems
we'd need to teach kunit-tool new tricks [2], too.
[1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201105195503.GA2399621@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[2] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201106123433.GA3563235@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

So if we go with a different format, we might need a patch before this
one to make kunit-tool compatible with that type of diagnostic.

Currently I think we have the following proposals for a format:

1. The current "# [test_case->name]: param-[index] [ok|not ok]" --
this works well, because no changes to kunit-tool are required, and it
also picks up the diagnostic context for the case and displays that on
test failure.

2. Your proposed "# [ok|not ok] - [test_case->name]:param-[index]".
As-is, this needs a patch for kunit-tool as well. I just checked, and
if we change it to "# [ok|not ok] - [test_case->name]: param-[index]"
(note the space after ':') it works without changing kunit-tool. ;-)

3. Something like "# [ok|not ok] param-[index] - [test_case->name]",
which I had played with earlier but kunit-tool is definitely not yet
happy with.

So my current preference is (2) with the extra space (no change to
kunit-tool required). WDYT?

> My other suggestion -- albeit one outside the scope of this initial
> version -- would be to allow the "param-%d" name to be overridden
> somehow by a test. For example, the ext4 inode test has names for all
> its test cases: it'd be nice to be able to display those instead (even
> if they're not formatted as identifiers as-is).

Right, I was thinking about this, but it'd need a way to optionally
pass another function that converts const void* params to readable
strings. But as you say, we should do that as a follow-up patch later
because it might require a few more iterations.

[...]

Thanks,
-- Marco