summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/Documentation/dev-tools
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorDaniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>2020-11-24 01:57:59 +0300
committerShuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>2020-12-02 01:30:06 +0300
commit1f0e943df68ab407f523d9f47d96a535686a2293 (patch)
treeed2c4d133a6f280f7b1ab69ab148e7a078c101b3 /Documentation/dev-tools
parentf3ed003e64fe7faecbe4c34bd2a1f5571a23f05a (diff)
downloadlinux-1f0e943df68ab407f523d9f47d96a535686a2293.tar.xz
Documentation: kunit: provide guidance for testing many inputs
usage.rst goes into a detailed section about faking out classes, but currently lacks wording about how one might idiomatically test a range of inputs. Add a new chapter for "Common Patterns" and group "Isolating behvaior" and this new section under there. Give an example of how one might test a hash function via macros/helper funcs and a table-driven test and very briefly discuss pros and cons. Also highlight the KUNIT_EXPECT_*_MSG() variants (that aren't mentioned elsewhere [1]) which are particularly useful in these situations. It is also criminally underused at the moment, only appearing in 2 tests (both written by people involved in KUnit). [1] not even on https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/dev-tools/kunit/api/test.html Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com> Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/dev-tools')
-rw-r--r--Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst83
1 files changed, 77 insertions, 6 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst
index 9c28c518e6a3..d9fdc14f0677 100644
--- a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst
+++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst
@@ -15,10 +15,10 @@ project, see :doc:`start`.
Organization of this document
=============================
-This document is organized into two main sections: Testing and Isolating
-Behavior. The first covers what unit tests are and how to use KUnit to write
-them. The second covers how to use KUnit to isolate code and make it possible
-to unit test code that was otherwise un-unit-testable.
+This document is organized into two main sections: Testing and Common Patterns.
+The first covers what unit tests are and how to use KUnit to write them. The
+second covers common testing patterns, e.g. how to isolate code and make it
+possible to unit test code that was otherwise un-unit-testable.
Testing
=======
@@ -218,8 +218,11 @@ test was built in or not).
For more information on these types of things see the :doc:`api/test`.
+Common Patterns
+===============
+
Isolating Behavior
-==================
+------------------
The most important aspect of unit testing that other forms of testing do not
provide is the ability to limit the amount of code under test to a single unit.
@@ -233,7 +236,7 @@ implementer, and architecture-specific functions which have definitions selected
at compile time.
Classes
--------
+~~~~~~~
Classes are not a construct that is built into the C programming language;
however, it is an easily derived concept. Accordingly, pretty much every project
@@ -451,6 +454,74 @@ We can now use it to test ``struct eeprom_buffer``:
destroy_eeprom_buffer(ctx->eeprom_buffer);
}
+Testing against multiple inputs
+-------------------------------
+
+Testing just a few inputs might not be enough to have confidence that the code
+works correctly, e.g. for a hash function.
+
+In such cases, it can be helpful to have a helper macro or function, e.g. this
+fictitious example for ``sha1sum(1)``
+
+.. code-block:: c
+
+ /* Note: the cast is to satisfy overly strict type-checking. */
+ #define TEST_SHA1(in, want) \
+ sha1sum(in, out); \
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ_MSG(test, (char *)out, want, "sha1sum(%s)", in);
+
+ char out[40];
+ TEST_SHA1("hello world", "2aae6c35c94fcfb415dbe95f408b9ce91ee846ed");
+ TEST_SHA1("hello world!", "430ce34d020724ed75a196dfc2ad67c77772d169");
+
+
+Note the use of ``KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ_MSG`` to give more context when it fails
+and make it easier to track down. (Yes, in this example, ``want`` is likely
+going to be unique enough on its own).
+
+The ``_MSG`` variants are even more useful when the same expectation is called
+multiple times (in a loop or helper function) and thus the line number isn't
+enough to identify what failed, like below.
+
+In some cases, it can be helpful to write a *table-driven test* instead, e.g.
+
+.. code-block:: c
+
+ int i;
+ char out[40];
+
+ struct sha1_test_case {
+ const char *str;
+ const char *sha1;
+ };
+
+ struct sha1_test_case cases[] = {
+ {
+ .str = "hello world",
+ .sha1 = "2aae6c35c94fcfb415dbe95f408b9ce91ee846ed",
+ },
+ {
+ .str = "hello world!",
+ .sha1 = "430ce34d020724ed75a196dfc2ad67c77772d169",
+ },
+ };
+ for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(cases); ++i) {
+ sha1sum(cases[i].str, out);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ_MSG(test, (char *)out, cases[i].sha1,
+ "sha1sum(%s)", cases[i].str);
+ }
+
+
+There's more boilerplate involved, but it can:
+
+* be more readable when there are multiple inputs/outputs thanks to field names,
+
+ * E.g. see ``fs/ext4/inode-test.c`` for an example of both.
+* reduce duplication if test cases can be shared across multiple tests.
+
+ * E.g. if we wanted to also test ``sha256sum``, we could add a ``sha256``
+ field and reuse ``cases``.
+
.. _kunit-on-non-uml:
KUnit on non-UML architectures