Re: [PATCH] kunit: tool: Add list of all valid test configs on UML

[Daniel Latypov]

On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 1:37 AM David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 6:37 AM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 11:56 PM David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > It's often desirable (particularly in test automation) to run as many
> > > tests as possible. This config enables all the tests which work as
> > > builtins under UML at present, increasing the total tests run from 156
> > > to 342 (not counting 36 'skipped' tests).
> >
> > Just to clear up potential confusion for others, I'll note that these
> > aren't counting test cases.
> > This is from kunit.py's output, so it counts each parameter from
> > parameterized tests as "subtests."
> >
> > Copying my command from
> > https://kunit-review.googlesource.com/c/linux/+/5249, one can use this
> > to count the # of test cases.
> > $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --kunitconfig=...
> > --raw_output=kunit --kernel_args=kunit.action=list | egrep
> > '^[a-z0-9_-]+\.[a-z0-9_-]+'
> >
> > I see this enabling a total of 260 test _cases_ (including skipped).
> >
> > The default (basically just CONFIG_KUNIT_ALL_TESTS=y) gives 192
> > (including skipped).
> >
>
> Yup, that's definitely the case. I guess I still was thinking in KTAP
> terms, where all subtests are effectively tests.
>
> That being said, I do think the total (sub)test (including parameters,
> etc) number is the one that's more visible: not only does kunit_tool
> print it, but it's also what we've been using as our go to "number of
> tests" generally.

Yes, I agree it's the number to use here.
If there's a v2 of this patch, we could also reword the commit message
a bit to make it more explicit.
If not, this seems fine as-is. The only issue I saw was a minor typo.

Re goto for "number of tests."
Reminder, we've also been using this to count "# tests" :P
$ git grep 'KUNIT_CASE' | grep -Ev
'^Documentation/|get_metrics.sh|include/kunit/test.h' | wc -l
This avoids us having to figure out how to build all the tests,
sidesteps the problem that subtests can be dynamically generated via
parameterized testing, etc.

>
> > >
> > > They can be run with:
> > > ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run
> > > --kunitconfig=./tools/testing/kunit/configs/all_tests_uml.config
> > >
> > > This acts as an in-between point between the KUNIT_ALL_TESTS config
> > > (which enables only tests whose dependencies are already enabled), and
> > > the kunit_tool --alltests option, which tries to use allyesconfig,
> > > taking a very long time to build and breaking very often.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Tested-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Looks good to me, some small comments below.
> >
> > > ---
> > >  .../kunit/configs/all_tests_uml.config        | 37 +++++++++++++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 37 insertions(+)
> > >  create mode 100644 tools/testing/kunit/configs/all_tests_uml.config
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/configs/all_tests_uml.config b/tools/testing/kunit/configs/all_tests_uml.config
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 000000000000..bdee36bef4a3
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/configs/all_tests_uml.config
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
> > > +# This config enables as many tests as possible under UML.
> > > +# It is intended for use in continuous integration systems and similar for
> > > +# automated testing of as much as possible.
> > > +# The config is manually maintained, though it uses KUNIT_ALL_TESTS=y to enable
> > > +# any tests whose dependencies are already satisfied. Please feel free to add
> > > +# more options if they any new tests.
> >
> > missing: "enable"?
> > "if they enable any new tests"
> >
> Whoops, I was switching from "there are any" to "if they enable any"
> and clearly got distracted halfway through. :-)
>
> > Hmm, should we state a preference for how heavy (time or
> > resource-wise) tests should be?
> > Because the comment says it's meant for automation, but I can imagine
> > humans wanting to run it.
> > (I'm completely fine with us not stating one, just throwing the idea
> > out there for discussion)
>
> I think we're probably okay with being a little bit lenient on test
> times. The time_test_cases.time64_to_tm_test_date_range and similar
> tests take quite a long time in some situations already (older hw,
> running under some emulators), but is generally pretty close to
> instant under most UML setups. Particularly given that not building
> with allyesconfig already saves us many, many minutes of time.

Agreed on all points.
I personally think it's reasonable to leave things as-is.

We don't have any problematic tests that work on UML yet.