lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Mar]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC v3 18/19] of: unittest: split out a couple of test cases from unittest
From
Date
On 3/21/19 6:30 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 5:22 PM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> 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!
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-03-22 02:48    [W:0.127 / U:21.616 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site