Re: [EXT] [PATCH] app/test: don't count skipped tests as executed

Re: [EXT] [PATCH] app/test: don't count skipped tests as executed

[Bruce Richardson]

On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 02:36:27PM +0000, Akhil Goyal wrote:
> > Subject: [EXT] [PATCH] app/test: don't count skipped tests as executed
> > The logic around skipped tests is a little confusing in the unit test
> > runner.
> > * Any explicitly disabled tests are counted as skipped but not
> >   executed.
> > * Any tests that return TEST_SKIPPED are counted as both skipped and
> >   executed, using the same statistics counters.
> > 
> > This makes the stats very strange and hard to correlate, since the
> > totals don't add up.  One would expect that SKIPPED + EXECUTED +
> > UNSUPPORTED == TOTAL, and that PASSED + FAILED == EXECUTED.
> > 
> > To achieve this, mark any tests returning TEST_SKIPPED, or ENOTSUP as
> > not having executed.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
> 
> Acked-by: Akhil Goyal <gakhil@marvell.com>
Cc: stable@dpdk.org

> 
> Yes this makes sense.
> One would say executed should count the unsupported cases as well.
> But I think this makes sense to not include them in executed cases.

It's a good question and there are arguments either way. I'd say that no
test should return ENOTSUP now, and that such tests should return
TEST_SKIPPED. For now, I think it's best to treat them the same.

> This would give better correlation.
> Can we backport this as well?
> 

If LTS maintainers want it, sure. Adding stable on CC.

Re: [EXT] [PATCH] app/test: don't count skipped tests as executed

[Thomas Monjalon]

05/03/2024 16:11, Bruce Richardson:
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 02:36:27PM +0000, Akhil Goyal wrote:
> > > Subject: [EXT] [PATCH] app/test: don't count skipped tests as executed
> > > The logic around skipped tests is a little confusing in the unit test
> > > runner.
> > > * Any explicitly disabled tests are counted as skipped but not
> > >   executed.
> > > * Any tests that return TEST_SKIPPED are counted as both skipped and
> > >   executed, using the same statistics counters.
> > > 
> > > This makes the stats very strange and hard to correlate, since the
> > > totals don't add up.  One would expect that SKIPPED + EXECUTED +
> > > UNSUPPORTED == TOTAL, and that PASSED + FAILED == EXECUTED.
> > > 
> > > To achieve this, mark any tests returning TEST_SKIPPED, or ENOTSUP as
> > > not having executed.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
> > 
> > Acked-by: Akhil Goyal <gakhil@marvell.com>
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> 
> > 
> > Yes this makes sense.
> > One would say executed should count the unsupported cases as well.
> > But I think this makes sense to not include them in executed cases.
> 
> It's a good question and there are arguments either way. I'd say that no
> test should return ENOTSUP now, and that such tests should return
> TEST_SKIPPED. For now, I think it's best to treat them the same.
> 
> > This would give better correlation.
> > Can we backport this as well?
> > 
> 
> If LTS maintainers want it, sure. Adding stable on CC.

Applied, thanks.