On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 11:28 AM Marco Elver <el...@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 18:17, David Gow <david...@google.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > > First of all, thanks for the talk yesterday! I only looked at this
> > > because somebody pasted the LKML link. :-)
> >
> > No worries! Clearly this document needed linking -- even I was
> > starting to suspect the reason no-one was complaining about this was
> > that no-one had read it. :-)
> [...]
> > >
> > > While I guess this ship has sailed, and *_kunit.c is the naming
> > > convention now, I hope this is still just a recommendation and names of
> > > the form *-test.c are not banned!
> >
> > The ship hasn't technically sailed until this patch is actually
> > accepted. Thus far, we hadn't had any real complaints about the
> > _kunit.c idea, though that may have been due to this email not
> > reaching enough people. If you haven't read the discussion in
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/202006141005.BA19A9D3@keescook/t/#u
> > it's worthwhile: the _kunit.c name is discussed, and Kees lays out
> > some more detailed rationale for it as well.
>
> Thanks, I can see the rationale. AFAIK the main concern was "it does
> not distinguish it from other tests".
That was my understanding as well.
> > > $> git grep 'KUNIT.*-test.o'
> > > drivers/base/power/Makefile:obj-$(CONFIG_PM_QOS_KUNIT_TEST) +=
> > > qos-test.o
> > > drivers/base/test/Makefile:obj-$(CONFIG_KUNIT_DRIVER_PE_TEST) +=
> > > property-entry-test.o
> > > fs/ext4/Makefile:obj-$(CONFIG_EXT4_KUNIT_TESTS) +=
> > > ext4-inode-test.o
> > > kernel/Makefile:obj-$(CONFIG_SYSCTL_KUNIT_TEST) += sysctl-test.o
> > > lib/Makefile:obj-$(CONFIG_LIST_KUNIT_TEST) += list-test.o
> > > lib/kunit/Makefile:obj-$(CONFIG_KUNIT_TEST) +=
> > > kunit-test.o
> > > lib/kunit/Makefile:obj-$(CONFIG_KUNIT_TEST) +=
> > > string-stream-test.o
> > > lib/kunit/Makefile:obj-$(CONFIG_KUNIT_EXAMPLE_TEST) +=
> > > kunit-example-test.o
> > >
> > > $> git grep 'KUNIT.*_kunit.o'
> > > # Returns nothing
> > >
> >
> > This was definitely something we noted. Part of the goal of having
> > _kunit.c as a filename suffix (and, perhaps more importantly, the
> > _kunit module name suffix) was to have a way of both distinguishing
> > KUnit tests from non-KUnit ones (of which there are quite a few
> > already with -test names), and to have a way of quickly determining
> > what modules contain KUnit tests. That really only works if everyone
> > is using it, so the plan was to push this as much as possible. This'd
> > probably include renaming most of the existing test files to match,
> > which is a bit of a pain (particularly when converting non-KUnit tests
> > to KUnit and similar), but is a one-time thing.
>
> Feel free to ignore the below, but here might be one concern:
>
> I think the problem of distinguishing KUnit tests from non-KUnit tests
> is a technical problem (in fact, the Kconfig entries have all the info
> we need), but a solution that sacrifices readability might cause
> unnecessary friction.
>
> The main issue I foresee is that the _kunit.c name is opaque as to
> what the file does, but merely indicates one of its dependencies. Most
> of us clearly know that KUnit is a test framework, but it's a level of
> indirection nevertheless. (But _kunit_test.c is also bad, because it's
> unnecessarily long.) For a dozen tests, that's probably still fine.
> But now imagine 100s of tests, people will quickly wonder "what's this
> _kunit thing?". And if KUnit tests are eventually the dominant tests,
> does it still matter?
>
> I worry that because of the difficulty of enforcing the name, choosing
> something unintuitive will also achieve the opposite result:
> proliferation of even more diverse names. A generic convention like
> "*-test.c" will be close enough to what's intuitive for most people,
> and we might actually have a chance of getting everyone to stick to
> it.
>
> The problem of identifying all KUnit tests can be solved with a script.
Fair point. However, converting all non-kselftests to kselftest or
KUnit will likely take time, and kselftest will likely be with us
forever. In short, other tests are likely to co-exist with KUnit for a
long time if not in perpetuity; thus, I think Kees' point stands in
this case.
> > > Just an idea: Maybe the names are also an opportunity to distinguish
> > > real _unit_ style tests and then the rarer integration-style tests. I
> > > personally prefer using the more generic *-test.c, at least for the
> > > integration-style tests I've been working on (KUnit is still incredibly
> > > valuable for integration-style tests, because otherwise I'd have to roll
> > > my own poor-man's version of KUnit, so thank you!). Using *_kunit.c for
> > > such tests is unintuitive, because the word "unit" hints at "unit tests"
> > > -- and having descriptive (and not misleading) filenames is still
> > > important. So I hope you won't mind if *-test.c are still used where
> > > appropriate.
> >
> > As Brendan alluded to in the talk, the popularity of KUnit for these
> > integration-style tests came as something of a surprise (more due to
> > our lack of imagination than anything else, I suspect). It's great
> > that it's working, though: I don't think anyone wants the world filled
> > with more single-use test "frameworks" than is necessary!
> >
> > I guess the interesting thing to note is that we've to date not really
> > made a distinction between KUnit the framework and the suite of all
> > KUnit tests. Maybe having a separate file/module naming scheme could
> > be a way of making that distinction, though it'd really only appear
> > when loading tests as modules -- there'd be no indication in e.g.,
> > suite names or test results. The more obvious solution to me (at
> > least, based on the current proposal) would be to have "integration"
> > or similar be part of the suite name (and hence the filename, so
> > _integration_kunit.c or similar), though even I admit that that's much
> > uglier.
Very good point.
> Yeah, that's not great either. Again, in the end it's probably
> entirely up to you, but it'd be good if the filenames are descriptive
> and readable (vs. a puzzle).
Yeah, I have no good answers either.
Dumb idea: name integration tests *_kint.c. Probably worse and more
confusing than either just *_kunit.c or *_integration_{test|kunit}.c.
As misleading as it is to have the label "unit" on an integration
test, I tend to think that asking devs to label their tests properly
as either unit tests or integration tests is unrealistic.
Then again, does it really matter for anyone other than the maintainer
and devs who contribute to the test?
> > Maybe the idea of having the subsystem/suite distinction be
> > represented in the code could pave the way to having different suites
> > support different suffixes like that.
I don't think I follow.
> > Do you know of any cases where something has/would have both
> > unit-style tests and integration-style tests built with KUnit where
> > the distinction needs to be clear?
>
> None I know of, so probably not a big deal.
>
> > Brendan, Kees: do you have any thoughts?
Marco and Kees both make good points. I don't think there is a right
or wrong decision here; I think we just need to pick.
Personally, I like *-test.c, but that's probably just because that was
my original intention: I am not really sure that the costs/benefits
really make it superior to *-kunit.c.
David, it's your patch, so it's up to you; however, if you want to
pick *-test.c, and blame any consequences on me, feel free.
Cheers
