Hi Heinrich, On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 at 08:33, Heinrich Schuchardt <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 15.01.25 14:30, Simon Glass wrote: > > The current method of running unit tests relies on subcommands of the > > ut command. Only the code in each subcommand knows how to find the tests > > related to that subcomand. > > > > This is not ideal and we now have quite a few subcommands which do > > nothing but locate the relevant tests in a linker list, then call a > > common function to run them. > > > > This series adds a list of test suites, so that these subcommands can be > > removed. > > > > An issue with 'ut all' is that it doesn't record how many tests failed > > overall, so it is necessary to examine copious amounts of output to look > > for failures. This series adds a new 'total' feature allow recording the > > total number of failed tests. > > > > To help with 'ut all' a new pytest is created which runs it (as well as > > 'ut info') and makes sure that all is well. Due to the 'ut all' failures > > this does not pass, so the test is disabled for now. It is here because > > it provides security against misnaming a test suite and causing it not > > to run. > > > > Future work may: > > - get 'ut all' passing > > - enable test_suite() in CL, to ensure that 'ut all' keeps passing > > - record duration of each suite > > - allow running the tests in random order to tease out dependencies > > - tweak the output to remove common prefixes > > - getting rid of bootstd, optee and seame 'ut' subcommands > > Am I missing a patch for doc/ or will the usage of the ut command remain > unchanged?
No change to the command, but the output changes, so I can add an update to the 'examples' section. > > How would you specify a test suite like 'lib' in future? LIB_TEST(...) If you want to create a new one, you need to add it to the list in cmd_ut.c as now. But it is now in a new format which is easier to maintain. > How would you specify running all tests in future? 'ut -a' as now [..] Regards, Simon
