[PATCH 1/2] test: describe naming conventions for macro UNIT_TEST

[Simon Glass]

On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 17:28, Stephen Warren <swarren at wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
>
> On 5/6/20 10:26 AM, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> > Strict naming conventions have to be followed for Python function
> > generate_ut_subtest() to collect C unit tests to be executed via
> > command 'ut'.
> >
> > Describe the requirements both on the C as well on the Python side.
>
> > +/**
> > + * UNIT_TEST() - create linker generated list entry for unit a unit test
> > + *
> > + * The macro UNIT_TEST() is used to create a linker generated list entry. These
> > + * list entries are enumerate tests that can be execute using the ut command.
> > + * The list entries are used both by the implementation of the ut command as
> > + * well as in a related Python test.
> > + *
> > + * For Python testing the subtests are collected in Python function
> > + * generate_ut_subtest() by applying a regular expression to the lines of file
> > + * u-boot.sym. The list entries have to follow strict naming conventions to be
> > + * matched by the expression.
> > + *
> > + * Use UNIT_TEST(foo_test_bar, _flags, foo_test) for a test bar in test suite
> > + * foo that can be executed via command 'ut foo bar' and is implemented in
> > + * function foo_test_bar().
> > + *
> > + * @_name:   concatenation of name of the test suite, "_test_", and the name
> > + *           of the test
> > + * @_flags:  an integer field that can be evaluated by the test suite
> > + *           implementation
> > + * @_suite:  name of the test suite concatenated with "_test"
> > + */
>
> Perhaps the macro could simply take "foo" and "bar" as parameters, and
> generate the function name foo_test_bar internally rather than having
> the user pass it in. That way, compilation will actively fail if the
> function isn't named correctly, since it won't match the reference
> created by this macro.
>
> To help make this easier, we could add another macro e.g.
> UNIT_TEST_FUNC() that evaluates to just the expected function name, so
> that people wouldn't have to know the naming convention when they
> implement the function; they'd just write e.g.:
>
> static int UNIT_TEST_FUNC(log, nolog_err)(struct unit_test_state *uts)

I am not a huge fan of that. It looks weird to have the function name
auto-generated, and it defeats ctags, code search, etc.. Another
option might be to check for exported test/ functions that don't match
and print a warning?

>
> But certainly this series is a good first step, and fine even if we
> don't implement this suggestion.

Yes definitely.

>
> The series,
> Reviewed-by: Stephen Warren <swarren at nvidia.com

Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>