Rust has documentation tests: these are typically examples of
usage of any item (e.g. function, struct, module...).
They are very convenient because they are just written
alongside the documentation. For instance:
/// Sums two numbers.
///
/// ```
/// assert_eq!(mymod::f(10, 20), 30);
/// ```
pub fn f(a: i32, b: i32) -> i32 {
a + b
}
In userspace, the tests are collected and run via `rustdoc`.
Using the tool as-is would be useful already, since it allows
to compile-test most tests (thus enforcing they are kept
in sync with the code they document) and run those that do not
depend on in-kernel APIs.
However, by transforming the tests into a KUnit test suite,
they can also be run inside the kernel. Moreover, the tests
get to be compiled as other Rust kernel objects instead of
targeting userspace.
On top of that, the integration with KUnit means the Rust
support gets to reuse the existing testing facilities. For
instance, the kernel log would look like:
KTAP version 1
1..1
KTAP version 1
# Subtest: rust_doctests_kernel
1..59
# rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_0.location: rust/kernel/build_assert.rs:13
ok 1 rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_0
# rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_1.location: rust/kernel/build_assert.rs:56
ok 2 rust_doctest_kernel_build_assert_rs_1
# rust_doctest_kernel_init_rs_0.location: rust/kernel/init.rs:122
ok 3 rust_doctest_kernel_init_rs_0
...
# rust_doctest_kernel_types_rs_2.location: rust/kernel/types.rs:150
ok 59 rust_doctest_kernel_types_rs_2
# rust_doctests_kernel: pass:59 fail:0 skip:0 total:59
# Totals: pass:59 fail:0 skip:0 total:59
ok 1 rust_doctests_kernel
Therefore, add support for running Rust documentation tests
in KUnit. Some other notes about the current implementation
and support follow.
The transformation is performed by a couple scripts written
as Rust hostprogs.
Tests using the `?` operator are also supported as usual, e.g.:
/// ```
/// # use kernel::{spawn_work_item, workqueue};
/// spawn_work_item!(workqueue::system(), || pr_info!("x"))?;
/// # Ok::<(), Error>(())
/// ```
The tests are also compiled with Clippy under `CLIPPY=1`, just
like normal code, thus also benefitting from extra linting.
The names of the tests are currently automatically generated.
This allows to reduce the burden for documentation writers,
while keeping them fairly stable for bisection. This is an
improvement over the `rustdoc`-generated names, which include
the line number; but ideally we would like to get `rustdoc` to
provide the Rust item path and a number (for multiple examples
in a single documented Rust item).
In order for developers to easily see from which original line
a failed doctests came from, a KTAP diagnostic line is printed
to the log, containing the location (file and line) of the
original test (i.e. instead of the location in the generated
Rust file):
# rust_doctest_kernel_types_rs_2.location: rust/kernel/types.rs:150
This line follows the syntax for declaring test metadata in the
proposed KTAP v2 spec [1], which may be used for the proposed
KUnit test attributes API [2]. Thus hopefully this will make
migration easier later on (suggested by David [3]).
The original line in that test attribute is figured out by
providing an anchor (suggested by Boqun [4]). The original file
is found by walking the filesystem, checking directory prefixes
to reduce the amount of combinations to check, and it is only
done once per file. Ambiguities are detected and reported.
A notable difference from KUnit C tests is that the Rust tests
appear to assert using the usual `assert!` and `assert_eq!`
macros from the Rust standard library (`core`). We provide
a custom version that forwards the call to KUnit instead.
Importantly, these macros do not require passing context,
unlike the KUnit C ones (i.e. `struct kunit *`). This makes
them easier to use, and readers of the documentation do not need
to care about which testing framework is used. In addition, it
may allow us to test third-party code more easily in the future.
However, a current limitation is that KUnit does not support
assertions in other tasks. Thus we presently simply print an
error to the kernel log if an assertion actually failed. This
should be revisited to properly fail the test, perhaps saving
the context somewhere else, or letting KUnit handle it.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230420205734.1288498-1-rmoar@google.com/ [1]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20230707210947.1208717-1-rmoar@google.com/ [2]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/CABVgOSkOLO-8v6kdAGpmYnZUb+LKOX0CtYCo-Bge7r_2YTuXDQ@mail.gmail.com/ [3]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/ZIps86MbJF%2FiGIzd@boqun-archlinux/ [4]
Signed-off-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
a66d733da8