[v3,3/3] kunit: Update kunit_print_ok_not_ok function

There is no need use opaque test_or_suite pointer and is_test flag
as we don't use anything from the suite struct. Always expect test
pointer and use NULL as indication that provided results are from
the suite so we can treat them differently.

Since results could be from nested tests, like parameterized tests,
add explicit level parameter to properly indent output messages and
thus allow to reuse this function from other places.

While around, remove small code duplication near skip directive.

Signed-off-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com>
Cc: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Cc: Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com>
---
 include/kunit/test.h |  1 +
 lib/kunit/test.c     | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

On Wed, 17 May 2023 at 19:20, Michal Wajdeczko
<michal.wajdeczko@intel.com> wrote:
>
> There is no need use opaque test_or_suite pointer and is_test flag
> as we don't use anything from the suite struct. Always expect test
> pointer and use NULL as indication that provided results are from
> the suite so we can treat them differently.
>
> Since results could be from nested tests, like parameterized tests,
> add explicit level parameter to properly indent output messages and
> thus allow to reuse this function from other places.
>
> While around, remove small code duplication near skip directive.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com>
> Cc: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
> Cc: Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com>
> ---

This looks good to me, thanks.

As a note, this seems to trigger a bug in checkpatch.pl:
substr outside of string at ./scripts/checkpatch.pl line 1664.
Use of uninitialized value $fmt in substitution (s///) at
./scripts/checkpatch.pl line 6899.
Use of uninitialized value $fmt in pattern match (m//) at
./scripts/checkpatch.pl line 6901.

I haven't dug into that myself, yet (it's something to do with format
strings), but I don't think we need to change this patch to work
around it.

Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>

Cheers,
-- David

>  include/kunit/test.h |  1 +
>  lib/kunit/test.c     | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>  2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h
> index 3028a1a3fcad..d717fc055e06 100644
> --- a/include/kunit/test.h
> +++ b/include/kunit/test.h
> @@ -47,6 +47,7 @@ struct kunit;
>   * sub-subtest.  See the "Subtests" section in
>   * https://node-tap.org/tap-protocol/
>   */
> +#define KUNIT_INDENT_LEN               4
>  #define KUNIT_SUBTEST_INDENT           "    "
>  #define KUNIT_SUBSUBTEST_INDENT                "        "
>
> diff --git a/lib/kunit/test.c b/lib/kunit/test.c
> index af48d0761d26..6bc92ced82ee 100644
> --- a/lib/kunit/test.c
> +++ b/lib/kunit/test.c
> @@ -185,16 +185,28 @@ static void kunit_print_suite_start(struct kunit_suite *suite)
>                   kunit_suite_num_test_cases(suite));
>  }
>
> -static void kunit_print_ok_not_ok(void *test_or_suite,
> -                                 bool is_test,
> +/* Currently supported test levels */
> +enum {
> +       KUNIT_LEVEL_SUITE = 0,
> +       KUNIT_LEVEL_CASE,
> +       KUNIT_LEVEL_CASE_PARAM,
> +};
> +
> +static void kunit_print_ok_not_ok(struct kunit *test,
> +                                 unsigned int test_level,
>                                   enum kunit_status status,
>                                   size_t test_number,
>                                   const char *description,
>                                   const char *directive)
>  {
> -       struct kunit_suite *suite = is_test ? NULL : test_or_suite;
> -       struct kunit *test = is_test ? test_or_suite : NULL;
>         const char *directive_header = (status == KUNIT_SKIPPED) ? " # SKIP " : "";
> +       const char *directive_body = (status == KUNIT_SKIPPED) ? directive : "";
> +
> +       /*
> +        * When test is NULL assume that results are from the suite
> +        * and today suite results are expected at level 0 only.
> +        */
> +       WARN(!test && test_level, "suite test level can't be %u!\n", test_level);
>
>         /*
>          * We do not log the test suite results as doing so would
> @@ -203,17 +215,18 @@ static void kunit_print_ok_not_ok(void *test_or_suite,
>          * separately seq_printf() the suite results for the debugfs
>          * representation.
>          */
> -       if (suite)
> +       if (!test)
>                 pr_info("%s %zd %s%s%s\n",
>                         kunit_status_to_ok_not_ok(status),
>                         test_number, description, directive_header,
> -                       (status == KUNIT_SKIPPED) ? directive : "");
> +                       directive_body);
>         else
>                 kunit_log(KERN_INFO, test,
> -                         KUNIT_SUBTEST_INDENT "%s %zd %s%s%s",
> +                         "%*s%s %zd %s%s%s",
> +                         KUNIT_INDENT_LEN * test_level, "",
>                           kunit_status_to_ok_not_ok(status),
>                           test_number, description, directive_header,
> -                         (status == KUNIT_SKIPPED) ? directive : "");
> +                         directive_body);
>  }
>
>  enum kunit_status kunit_suite_has_succeeded(struct kunit_suite *suite)
> @@ -239,7 +252,7 @@ static size_t kunit_suite_counter = 1;
>
>  static void kunit_print_suite_end(struct kunit_suite *suite)
>  {
> -       kunit_print_ok_not_ok((void *)suite, false,
> +       kunit_print_ok_not_ok(NULL, KUNIT_LEVEL_SUITE,
>                               kunit_suite_has_succeeded(suite),
>                               kunit_suite_counter++,
>                               suite->name,
> @@ -625,13 +638,11 @@ int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite)
>                                                  "param-%d", test.param_index);
>                                 }
>
> -                               kunit_log(KERN_INFO, &test,
> -                                         KUNIT_SUBTEST_INDENT KUNIT_SUBTEST_INDENT
> -                                         "%s %d %s%s%s",
> -                                         kunit_status_to_ok_not_ok(test.status),
> -                                         test.param_index + 1, param_desc,
> -                                         test.status == KUNIT_SKIPPED ? " # SKIP " : "",
> -                                         test.status == KUNIT_SKIPPED ? test.status_comment : "");
> +                               kunit_print_ok_not_ok(&test, KUNIT_LEVEL_CASE_PARAM,
> +                                                     test.status,
> +                                                     test.param_index + 1,
> +                                                     param_desc,
> +                                                     test.status_comment);
>
>                                 /* Get next param. */
>                                 param_desc[0] = '\0';
> @@ -645,7 +656,7 @@ int kunit_run_tests(struct kunit_suite *suite)
>
>                 kunit_print_test_stats(&test, param_stats);
>
> -               kunit_print_ok_not_ok(&test, true, test_case->status,
> +               kunit_print_ok_not_ok(&test, KUNIT_LEVEL_CASE, test_case->status,
>                                       kunit_test_case_num(suite, test_case),
>                                       test_case->name,
>                                       test.status_comment);
> --
> 2.25.1
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "KUnit Development" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kunit-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kunit-dev/20230517111816.984-4-michal.wajdeczko%40intel.com.