Messages in this thread | | | From | Trent Piepho <> | Date | Tue, 25 May 2021 14:09:23 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] lib/math/rational: Add Kunit test cases |
| |
On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 10:34 AM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 7:43 AM Trent Piepho <tpiepho@gmail.com> wrote: > > Adds a number of test cases that cover a range of possible code paths. > > > > Signed-off-by: Trent Piepho <tpiepho@gmail.com> > > Reviewed-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> > > Looks really good to me, just two nits. > > Tangent: > I didn't check to see that this covers all the interesting cases, but > it seems like it does. > If you want, you can try generating a code coverage report to double check. > Instructions for doing so can be found in > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20210414222256.1280532-1-dlatypov@google.com/ > I would have done that and included the #s in this email, but my > workplace decided to subtly break my workstation in some way and I > haven't gotten around to root causing...
I installed a gcc 6.4 toolchain and changed the uml_abort() call to exit(), coverage was generated, but still truncated and incorrectly near 0%. So what I did was crash after running all the test cases I cared about by dividing by zero and then coverage data was produced correctly. It's 100% by lines. But I think both possibilities when the largest semiconvergent is exactly half the previous convergent aren't tested.
> > lib/math/rational-test.c | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Ah, sorry, I forgot to mention this in the previous email. > If you look at kunit/style.rst docs, you'll see the documentation now > states a preference for the name of this file to be one of > {rational_test.c, rational_kunit.c}
Before I chose a name, I checked every file with kunit tests cases, and *-test was the most common naming pattern, including the sample case. I would be nice if changing the docs to say something is a standard also updated the code to make that reality.
| |