| Message ID | cover.1618388989.git.npache@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | kunit: Fix formatting of KUNIT tests to meet the standard | expand |
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 04:58:03 -0400, Nico Pache wrote: > There are few instances of KUNIT tests that are not properly defined. > This commit focuses on correcting these issues to match the standard > defined in the Documentation. > > Issues Fixed: > - tests should end in KUNIT_TEST, some fixes have been applied to > correct issues were KUNIT_TESTS is used or KUNIT is not mentioned. > - Tests should default to KUNIT_ALL_TESTS > - Tests configs tristate should have if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS > > [...] Applied to https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/sound.git for-next Thanks! [1/6] kunit: ASoC: topology: adhear to KUNIT formatting standard commit: b5fb388da472a69858355560d803602e0ace1006 All being well this means that it will be integrated into the linux-next tree (usually sometime in the next 24 hours) and sent to Linus during the next merge window (or sooner if it is a bug fix), however if problems are discovered then the patch may be dropped or reverted. You may get further e-mails resulting from automated or manual testing and review of the tree, please engage with people reporting problems and send followup patches addressing any issues that are reported if needed. If any updates are required or you are submitting further changes they should be sent as incremental updates against current git, existing patches will not be replaced. Please add any relevant lists and maintainers to the CCs when replying to this mail. Thanks, Mark
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 04:58:03AM -0400, Nico Pache wrote: > There are few instances of KUNIT tests that are not properly defined. > This commit focuses on correcting these issues to match the standard > defined in the Documentation. The word "standard" seems to be over-stating things. The documentation currently states, "they _usually_ have config options ending in ``_KUNIT_TEST'' (emphasis mine). I can imagine that there might be some useful things we can do from a tooling perspective if we do standardize things, but if you really want to make it a "standard", we should first update the manpage to say so, and explain why (e.g., so that we can easily extract out all of the kunit test modules, and perhaps paint a vision of what tools might be able to do with such a standard). Alternatively, the word "standard" could perhaps be changed to "convention", which I think more accurately defines how things work at the moment. > Nico Pache (6): > kunit: ASoC: topology: adhear to KUNIT formatting standard > kunit: software node: adhear to KUNIT formatting standard > kunit: ext4: adhear to KUNIT formatting standard > kunit: lib: adhear to KUNIT formatting standard > kunit: mptcp: adhear to KUNIT formatting standard > m68k: update configs to match the proper KUNIT syntax Also, "adhear" is not the correct spelling; the correct spelling is "adhere" (from the Latin verb "adhaerere", "to stick", as in "to hold fast or stick by as if by gluing", which then became "to bind oneself to the observance of a set of rules or standards or practices"). - Ted
On 4/18/21 3:39 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 04:58:03AM -0400, Nico Pache wrote: >> There are few instances of KUNIT tests that are not properly defined. >> This commit focuses on correcting these issues to match the standard >> defined in the Documentation. > The word "standard" seems to be over-stating things. The > documentation currently states, "they _usually_ have config options > ending in ``_KUNIT_TEST'' (emphasis mine). I can imagine that there > might be some useful things we can do from a tooling perspective if we > do standardize things, but if you really want to make it a "standard", > we should first update the manpage to say so, KUNIT Maintainers, should we go ahead and make this the "standard"? As Ted has stated... consistency with 'grep' is my desired outcome. > and explain why (e.g., > so that we can easily extract out all of the kunit test modules, and > perhaps paint a vision of what tools might be able to do with such a > standard). > > Alternatively, the word "standard" could perhaps be changed to > "convention", which I think more accurately defines how things work at > the moment.Nico Pache (6): > kunit: ASoC: topology: adhear to KUNIT formatting standard > kunit: software node: adhear to KUNIT formatting standard > kunit: ext4: adhear to KUNIT formatting standard > kunit: lib: adhear to KUNIT formatting standard > kunit: mptcp: adhear to KUNIT formatting standard > m68k: update configs to match the proper KUNIT syntax > > Also, "adhear" is not the correct spelling; the correct spelling is > "adhere" (from the Latin verb "adhaerere", "to stick", as in "to hold > fast or stick by as if by gluing", which then became "to bind oneself > to the observance of a set of rules or standards or practices"). > > - Ted Whoops... Made that mistake in my v1 and inadvertently copied it over to all the patches. Cheers! -- Nico
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 4:39 AM Nico Pache <npache@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 4/18/21 3:39 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 04:58:03AM -0400, Nico Pache wrote: > >> There are few instances of KUNIT tests that are not properly defined. > >> This commit focuses on correcting these issues to match the standard > >> defined in the Documentation. > > The word "standard" seems to be over-stating things. The > > documentation currently states, "they _usually_ have config options > > ending in ``_KUNIT_TEST'' (emphasis mine). I can imagine that there > > might be some useful things we can do from a tooling perspective if we > > do standardize things, but if you really want to make it a "standard", > > we should first update the manpage to say so, > > KUNIT Maintainers, should we go ahead and make this the "standard"? > > As Ted has stated... consistency with 'grep' is my desired outcome. > The intention here is for this to be a "standard", with the caveat that there may be reasons for not following said standard, though they should be rare and may result in incompatibility with some tooling. This is broadly laid out in the opening of the Development/dev-tools/style.rst document, albeit still referring to "guidelines" rather than a "standard". The rest of the document does, as Ted pointed out, become more descriptive than prescriptive in some sections (like the Kconfig entry one): assuming no-one is particularly unhappy with that being tightened up, I've no problem with rewording it. That being said, when it comes to tooling, the Kconfig name does seem like it's less important than it could've been: the existence of a KUNIT_ALL_TESTS option, as well as support for having per-directory/per-subsystem .kunitconfig files should hopefully mean there's no need for tools to search for entries ending in _KUNIT_TEST. (I do agree that it makes using 'grep' more convenient, though.) > > and explain why (e.g., > > so that we can easily extract out all of the kunit test modules, and > > perhaps paint a vision of what tools might be able to do with such a > > standard). > > > > Alternatively, the word "standard" could perhaps be changed to > > "convention", which I think more accurately defines how things work at > > the moment. Cheers, -- David