Message ID | 20231105150955.349966-1-thaller@redhat.com |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | add infrastructure for unit tests | expand |
On Sun, 2023-11-05 at 16:08 +0100, Thomas Haller wrote: > Changes to v1: > > - rename some `make targets` > - add `make check-unit` to alias `make check-TESTS`. These targets > run the tests hooked up as "TESTS=" (which for now are the tests > in tests/unit). > - improve commit messages and various minor code changes. > > Thomas Haller (5): > build: add basic "check-{local,more,all}" and "build-all" make > targets > build: add `make check-build` to run `./tests/build/run-tests.sh` > build: add `make check-tree` to check consistency of source tree > build: cleanup if-blocks for conditional compilation in > "Makefile.am" > tests/unit: add unit tests for libnftables > > .gitignore | 15 +- > Makefile.am | 134 ++++++++++++--- > src/.gitignore | 5 - > tests/unit/nft-test.h | 14 ++ > tests/unit/test-libnftables-static.c | 16 ++ > tests/unit/test-libnftables.c | 21 +++ > tools/test-runner.sh | 235 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 7 files changed, 412 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 tests/unit/nft-test.h > create mode 100644 tests/unit/test-libnftables-static.c > create mode 100644 tests/unit/test-libnftables.c > create mode 100755 tools/test-runner.sh Hi Pablo, any concerns about this? Could it be merged? Thank you, Thomas
On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 01:34:54PM +0100, Thomas Haller wrote: > Hi Pablo, > > any concerns about this? Could it be merged? Sorry. JSON support is not working, I had to locally revert those patches to run tests on -stable 5.4 here. Let's agree on some basic rule from now on: One series at a time only, anything else coming after will be marked as deferred in patchwork. Thanks.
On Tue, 2023-11-21 at 13:37 +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 01:34:54PM +0100, Thomas Haller wrote: > > Hi Pablo, > > > > any concerns about this? Could it be merged? > > Sorry. JSON support is not working, I had to locally revert those > patches to run tests on -stable 5.4 here. > > Let's agree on some basic rule from now on: One series at a time > only, > anything else coming after will be marked as deferred in patchwork. > > Thanks. > Hi, Could this be considered? This provides the basis for unit tests (and the possibility to even add any such tests). It also hooks up tests to `make check`. Which would be desirable to build upon. `make check` currently does nothing. For example, Florian's afl++ patches could hook into `make check` (or `make check-more`), if this basis was there. Thomas
On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 08:53:23AM +0100, Thomas Haller wrote: > On Tue, 2023-11-21 at 13:37 +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 01:34:54PM +0100, Thomas Haller wrote: > > > Hi Pablo, > > > > > > any concerns about this? Could it be merged? > > > > Sorry. JSON support is not working, I had to locally revert those > > patches to run tests on -stable 5.4 here. > > > > Let's agree on some basic rule from now on: One series at a time > > only, > > anything else coming after will be marked as deferred in patchwork. > > > > Thanks. > > > > > Hi, > > Could this be considered? > > This provides the basis for unit tests (and the possibility to even add > any such tests). We are still discussing the json integration into tests/shell. I suggest, let dust settle on each front before making more changes. > It also hooks up tests to `make check`. Which would be desirable to > build upon. `make check` currently does nothing. For example, Florian's > afl++ patches could hook into `make check` (or `make check-more`), if > this basis was there. I still doubt `make check` provides any benefit to the release process, which will exercise this path because of `make distcheck' which I might have to relax it to `make dist' to skip this to ensure release process is reliable. I think all these tests should continously and provide reports to us, but not necessarily integrate them into `make check'.