Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] kunit: Fix formatting of KUNIT tests to meet the standard

[Nico Pache]

On 4/18/21 3:39 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 04:58:03AM -0400, Nico Pache wrote:
>> There are few instances of KUNIT tests that are not properly defined.
>> This commit focuses on correcting these issues to match the standard
>> defined in the Documentation.
> The word "standard" seems to be over-stating things.  The
> documentation currently states, "they _usually_ have config options
> ending in ``_KUNIT_TEST'' (emphasis mine).  I can imagine that there
> might be some useful things we can do from a tooling perspective if we
> do standardize things, but if you really want to make it a "standard",
> we should first update the manpage to say so, 

KUNIT Maintainers, should we go ahead and make this the "standard"?

As Ted has stated...  consistency with 'grep' is my desired outcome.

> and explain why (e.g.,
> so that we can easily extract out all of the kunit test modules, and
> perhaps paint a vision of what tools might be able to do with such a
> standard).
>
> Alternatively, the word "standard" could perhaps be changed to
> "convention", which I think more accurately defines how things work at
> the moment.Nico Pache (6):
>   kunit: ASoC: topology: adhear to KUNIT formatting standard
>   kunit: software node: adhear to KUNIT formatting standard
>   kunit: ext4: adhear to KUNIT formatting standard
>   kunit: lib: adhear to KUNIT formatting standard
>   kunit: mptcp: adhear to KUNIT formatting standard
>   m68k: update configs to match the proper KUNIT syntax
>
> Also, "adhear" is not the correct spelling; the correct spelling is
> "adhere" (from the Latin verb "adhaerere", "to stick", as in "to hold
> fast or stick by as if by gluing", which then became "to bind oneself
> to the observance of a set of rules or standards or practices").
>
>        		       	      	       		 - Ted

Whoops... Made that mistake in my v1 and inadvertently copied it over

to all the patches.


Cheers!

-- Nico