On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 05:37:44PM +0800, David Gow wrote: > On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 at 15:38, Thomas Weißschuh > <thomas.weissschuh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > If a subtest itself reports success, but the outer testcase fails, > > the whole testcase should be reported as a failure. > > However the status is recalculated based on the test counts, > > overwriting the outer test result. > > Synthesize a failed test in this case to make sure the failure is not > > swallowed. > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Hmm... this is definitely a nasty edge-case. I don't completely like > this solution, but none of the other options seem drastically better. > > I think the more obvious options are either to _always_ count tests > alongside their subtests, or to _never_ do so, but acknowledge that > "test failed, but failure count is 0" is a valid option. But neither > of those are especially satisfying, either greatly inflating test > counts, or creating obvious contradictions. > > So I'm tentatively in favour of this, but if anyone has a nicer way of > doing it, I'm all ears. Agreed, it is not great. I'd also be happy for better ideas. > The implementation looks good. If we can add the explicit checks for > the sub(sub)test results as mentioned in the previous patch, that'd be > even better. > > Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py | 5 +++++ > > tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py | 2 +- > > tools/testing/kunit/test_data/test_is_test_passed-failure-nested.log | 3 +++ > > 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py > > index c176487356e6c94882046b19ea696d750905b8d5..2478beb28fc3db825855ad46200340e884da7df1 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py > > +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py > > @@ -686,6 +686,11 @@ def bubble_up_test_results(test: Test) -> None: > > counts.add_status(status) > > elif test.counts.get_status() == TestStatus.TEST_CRASHED: > > test.status = TestStatus.TEST_CRASHED > > + if not test.ok_status(): > > + for t in subtests: > > + if not t.ok_status(): > > + counts.add_status(t.status) > > + break > > > > def parse_test(lines: LineStream, expected_num: int, log: List[str], is_subtest: bool, printer: Printer) -> Test: > > """ > > diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py > > index 691cde9b030f7729128490c1bdb42ccee1967ad6..c25f52650837e83325b06bddd2aa665fd29f91d9 100755 > > --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py > > +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py > > @@ -170,7 +170,7 @@ class KUnitParserTest(unittest.TestCase): > > with open(nested_log) as file: > > result = kunit_parser.parse_run_tests(file.readlines(), stdout) > > self.assertEqual(kunit_parser.TestStatus.FAILURE, result.status) > > - self.assertEqual(result.counts.failed, 2) > > + self.assertEqual(result.counts.failed, 3) > > self.assertEqual(kunit_parser.TestStatus.FAILURE, result.subtests[0].status) > > Could we add: > self.assertEqual(kunit_parser.TestStatus.SUCCESS, > result.subtests[0].subtests[0].status) > > > self.assertEqual(kunit_parser.TestStatus.FAILURE, result.subtests[1].status) Ack. > and > > self.assertEqual(kunit_parser.TestStatus.FAILURE, > result.subtests[1].subtests[0].status) This is now already in the previous patch. > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/test_data/test_is_test_passed-failure-nested.log b/tools/testing/kunit/test_data/test_is_test_passed-failure-nested.log > > index 835816e0a07715a514f5f5afab1b6250037feaf4..cd9033c464792e6294905a5676346684182874ad 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/kunit/test_data/test_is_test_passed-failure-nested.log > > +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/test_data/test_is_test_passed-failure-nested.log > > @@ -1,5 +1,8 @@ > > KTAP version 1 > > 1..2 > > + KTAP version 1 > > + 1..1 > > + ok 1 test 1 > > not ok 1 subtest 1 > > KTAP version 1 > > 1..1 > > > > -- > > 2.49.0 > >
