On Tue Aug 18, 2026 at 9:44 PM BST, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 5:23 PM Yury Norov <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Make every Rust KUnit test suite require the Kconfig option that controls >> it, and let the `kunit_tests` macro apply the corresponding `#[cfg]` >> attribute. > > If we are sure we always want at least one `cfg` guarding them, then > yeah, this makes sense (we could ask to write the `cfg` bit inside, > for "greppability", and for clarity / less ambiguity later on). > > David: are there cases on KUnit where you would recommend/prefer > something different? > > For instance, I could imagine a Rust `mod` for testing purposes > already gated by a `cfg` that is meant to contain many tests, and then > different suites inside that for control (possibly with extra `cfg`s, > but maybe none too for some).
There might also be cases where we want some other conditional (like combination of cfgs) to gate. I am okay with gating existing ones under new cfgs, but requiring one in macro invocation itself sounds bit excessive, and also doesn't look nice :) If we decide on actually requiring one, a better option might me for me to implement a lint in klint to produce a warning that is suppressable if people actually don't want to use cfgs. Best, Gary
