lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Mar]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC v3 18/19] of: unittest: split out a couple of test cases from unittest
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 6:47 PM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

Sounds good.

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

Noted.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-03-25 23:16    [W:0.149 / U:1.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site