On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 12:14AM -0700, David Gow wrote:

As discussed in [1], KUnit tests have hitherto not had a particularly
consistent naming scheme. This adds documentation outlining how tests
and test suites should be named, including how those names should be
used in Kconfig entries and filenames.

[1]:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/202006141005.BA19A9D3@keescook/t/#u (local)

Signed-off-by: David Gow <redacted>
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <redacted>
---

...

+An example Kconfig entry:
+
+.. code-block:: none
+
+        config FOO_KUNIT_TEST
+                tristate "KUnit test for foo" if !KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
+                depends on KUNIT
+                default KUNIT_ALL_TESTS
+                help
+                    This builds unit tests for foo.
+
+                    For more information on KUnit and unit tests in general, please refer
+                    to the KUnit documentation in Documentation/dev-tools/kunit
+
+                    If unsure, say N
+
+
+Test Filenames
+==============
+
+Where possible, test suites should be placed in a separate source file in the
+same directory as the code being tested.
+
+This file should be named ``<suite>_kunit.c``. It may make sense to strip
+excessive namespacing from the source filename (e.g., ``firmware_kunit.c`` instead of
+``<drivername>_firmware.c``), but please ensure the module name does contain the
+full suite name.

First of all, thanks for the talk yesterday! I only looked at this
because somebody pasted the LKML link. :-)

The example about excessive namespacing seems confusing. Was it supposed
to be 

	[...] firmware_kunit.c`` instead of ``<drivername>_firmware_kunit.c [...]

?


While I guess this ship has sailed, and *_kunit.c is the naming
convention now, I hope this is still just a recommendation and names of
the form *-test.c are not banned!

$> git grep 'KUNIT.*-test.o'
	drivers/base/power/Makefile:obj-$(CONFIG_PM_QOS_KUNIT_TEST) += qos-test.o
	drivers/base/test/Makefile:obj-$(CONFIG_KUNIT_DRIVER_PE_TEST) += property-entry-test.o
	fs/ext4/Makefile:obj-$(CONFIG_EXT4_KUNIT_TESTS)		+= ext4-inode-test.o
	kernel/Makefile:obj-$(CONFIG_SYSCTL_KUNIT_TEST) += sysctl-test.o
	lib/Makefile:obj-$(CONFIG_LIST_KUNIT_TEST) += list-test.o
	lib/kunit/Makefile:obj-$(CONFIG_KUNIT_TEST) +=		kunit-test.o
	lib/kunit/Makefile:obj-$(CONFIG_KUNIT_TEST) +=		string-stream-test.o
	lib/kunit/Makefile:obj-$(CONFIG_KUNIT_EXAMPLE_TEST) +=	kunit-example-test.o

$> git grep 'KUNIT.*_kunit.o'
# Returns nothing


Just an idea: Maybe the names are also an opportunity to distinguish
real _unit_ style tests and then the rarer integration-style tests. I
personally prefer using the more generic *-test.c, at least for the
integration-style tests I've been working on (KUnit is still incredibly
valuable for integration-style tests, because otherwise I'd have to roll
my own poor-man's version of KUnit, so thank you!). Using *_kunit.c for
such tests is unintuitive, because the word "unit" hints at "unit tests"
-- and having descriptive (and not misleading) filenames is still
important. So I hope you won't mind if *-test.c are still used where
appropriate.

Thanks,
-- Marco