[PATCH 0/2] add checks for tests not in a suite

[David Marchand]

On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 5:01 PM Aaron Conole <aconole at redhat.com> wrote:
> David Marchand <david.marchand at redhat.com> writes:
> > On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 10:36 AM Bruce Richardson
> > <bruce.richardson at intel.com> wrote:
> >> > > To help ensure that we don't have "orphaned" tests not in any test
> >> > > suites we can add the following checks:
> >> > >
> >> > > * In developer-mode builds, emit a warning for each test defined using
> >> > >   REGISTER_TEST_COMMAND
> >> > > * In checkpatches, add a check to prevent the addition of new tests
> >> > >   using the REGISTER_TEST_COMMAND macro
> >> > >
> >> > > Bruce Richardson (2):
> >> > >   app/test: emit warning for tests not in a test suite
> >> > >   devtools: check for tests added without a test suite
> >> > >
> >> > >  app/test/suites/meson.build   | 13 ++++++++++++-
> >> > >  buildtools/get-test-suites.py | 12 +++++++++---
> >> > >  devtools/checkpatches.sh      |  8 ++++++++
> >> > >  3 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > The "non_suite_tests" testsuite returned by
> >> > buildtools/get-test-suites.py is a bit strange, as it is not a
> >> > testsuite from meson pov.
> >>
> >> Yeah, it is a bit strange, and I'm open to new ideas on other solutions. I
> >> did it that way to avoid having yet another script to scan the files - I
> >> figured it was faster (in terms of runtime, not dev time) to do the
> >
> > I had figured it was "faster dev time" that won :-).
> > I am fine with it, I don't expect more complications in this area in the future.
> >
> >
> >> scanning when the files are already being opened and processed by this one.
> >>
> >> Of course, if we can get the un-suitened [:-)] test cases down to zero, we
> >> can theoretically drop this check in future, and  just use the checkpatch
> >> one.
> >
> > Well, that's still a question that nobody seems to comment on.
> >
> > What should we do with tests that don't enter one of those testsuites,
> > and are not invoked by the CI?
> >
> > Though we may be removing some level of coverage, I am for
> > cleaning/unused dead code.
>
> I guess it does require actually looking at these tests and classifying
> them to either put them into the proper suites.  As of now, we aren't
> really removing coverage if they aren't being run - but are any
> maintainers or developers actually running them?

Could we go a step further than Bruce runtime warning (which is at the
meson level and does not impact running the test)?
Perhaps have those orphaned tests fail unless their test names are
provided in a env variable like
DPDK_TRUST_ME_I_WILL_SUBMIT_A_PATCH_FOR_THIS_TEST (naming is hard
;-))?

With a systematic failure, there is less chance that
developers/maintainers miss the situation.
If those developers/maintainers simply waive the warning with the env
variable and don't send a patch, well.. too bad.

After a release or two, if we don't hear from anyone, we can start
removing the unused one.


-- 
David Marchand