usage.rst goes into a detailed about faking out classes, but currently lacks wording about how one might idiomatically test a range of inputs.
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 <dlaty...@google.com> --- Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 66 insertions(+) diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst index 62142a47488c..317390df2b96 100644 --- a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst +++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/usage.rst @@ -451,6 +451,72 @@ We can now use it to test ``struct eeprom_buffer``: destroy_eeprom_buffer(ctx->eeprom_buffer); } +Testing various 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 ``md5sum(1)`` + +.. code-block:: c + + /* Note: the cast is to satisfy overly strict type-checking. */ + #define TEST_MD5(in, want) \ + md5sum(in, out); \ + KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ_MSG(test, (char *)out, want, "md5sum(%s)", in); + + char out[16]; + TEST_MD5("hello world", "5eb63bbbe01eeed093cb22bb8f5acdc3"); + TEST_MD5("hello world!", "fc3ff98e8c6a0d3087d515c0473f8677"); + +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[16]; + + struct md5_test_case { + const char *str; + const char *md5; + }; + + struct md5_test_case cases[] = { + { + .str = "hello world", + .md5 = "5eb63bbbe01eeed093cb22bb8f5acdc3", + }, + { + .str = "hello world!", + .md5 = "fc3ff98e8c6a0d3087d515c0473f8677", + }, + }; + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(cases); ++i) { + md5sum(cases[i].str, out); + KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ_MSG(test, (char *)out, cases[i].md5, + "md5sum(%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 had a magical ``undo_md5sum`` function, we could reuse ``cases``. + .. _kunit-on-non-uml: KUnit on non-UML architectures base-commit: 77c8473edf7f7664137f555cfcdc8c460bbd947d -- 2.29.1.341.ge80a0c044ae-goog
