| Message ID | 20250306002933.1893355-1-rmoar@google.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Delegated to: | Brendan Higgins |
| Headers | show |
| Series | kunit: tool: Fix bug in parsing test plan | expand |
On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 at 08:29, Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com> wrote: > > A bug was identified where the KTAP below caused an infinite loop: > > TAP version 13 > ok 4 test_case > 1..4 > > The infinite loop was caused by the parser not parsing a test plan > if following a test result line. > > Fix bug to correctly parse test plan and add error if test plan is > missing. > > Signed-off-by: Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com> > --- Thanks for looking into this: I don't think we want to unconditionally error if there's no test plan, though. Pretty much no parameterised tests include one -- it's not always possible to know how many tests there'll be in advance -- so this triggers all of the time. Maybe we can only include an error if we find a test plan line after an existing result, or something? -- David > tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py | 12 +++++++----- > tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py | 5 ++--- > 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py > index 29fc27e8949b..5dcbc670e1dc 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py > +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py > @@ -761,20 +761,22 @@ def parse_test(lines: LineStream, expected_num: int, log: List[str], is_subtest: > test.name = "main" > ktap_line = parse_ktap_header(lines, test, printer) > test.log.extend(parse_diagnostic(lines)) > - parse_test_plan(lines, test) > + plan_line = parse_test_plan(lines, test) > parent_test = True > else: > # If not the main test, attempt to parse a test header containing > # the KTAP version line and/or subtest header line > ktap_line = parse_ktap_header(lines, test, printer) > subtest_line = parse_test_header(lines, test) > + test.log.extend(parse_diagnostic(lines)) > + plan_line = parse_test_plan(lines, test) > parent_test = (ktap_line or subtest_line) > if parent_test: > - # If KTAP version line and/or subtest header is found, attempt > - # to parse test plan and print test header > - test.log.extend(parse_diagnostic(lines)) > - parse_test_plan(lines, test) > print_test_header(test, printer) > + > + if parent_test and not plan_line: > + test.add_error(printer, 'missing test plan!') > + > expected_count = test.expected_count > subtests = [] > test_num = 1 > diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py > index 0bcb0cc002f8..e1e142c1a850 100755 > --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py > +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py > @@ -181,8 +181,7 @@ class KUnitParserTest(unittest.TestCase): > result = kunit_parser.parse_run_tests( > kunit_parser.extract_tap_lines( > file.readlines()), stdout) > - # A missing test plan is not an error. > - self.assertEqual(result.counts, kunit_parser.TestCounts(passed=10, errors=0)) > + self.assertEqual(result.counts, kunit_parser.TestCounts(passed=10, errors=2)) > self.assertEqual(kunit_parser.TestStatus.SUCCESS, result.status) > > def test_no_tests(self): > @@ -203,7 +202,7 @@ class KUnitParserTest(unittest.TestCase): > self.assertEqual( > kunit_parser.TestStatus.NO_TESTS, > result.subtests[0].subtests[0].status) > - self.assertEqual(result.counts, kunit_parser.TestCounts(passed=1, errors=1)) > + self.assertEqual(result.counts, kunit_parser.TestCounts(passed=1, errors=2)) > > > def test_no_kunit_output(self): > > base-commit: 0619a4868fc1b32b07fb9ed6c69adc5e5cf4e4b2 > -- > 2.48.1.711.g2feabab25a-goog >
On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 at 10:00, David Gow <davidgow@google.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 at 08:29, Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com> wrote: > > > > A bug was identified where the KTAP below caused an infinite loop: > > > > TAP version 13 > > ok 4 test_case > > 1..4 > > > > The infinite loop was caused by the parser not parsing a test plan > > if following a test result line. > > > > Fix bug to correctly parse test plan and add error if test plan is > > missing. > > > > Signed-off-by: Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com> Thanks for taking a look at this Rae! I tried to take a look myself but I could not really get a grip on the parsing logic in the time I had. > Thanks for looking into this: I don't think we want to unconditionally > error if there's no test plan, though. Pretty much no parameterised > tests include one -- it's not always possible to know how many tests > there'll be in advance -- so this triggers all of the time. > > Maybe we can only include an error if we find a test plan line after > an existing result, or something? Since I reported this bug, I discovered that the example above is in fact valid TAP: > The plan [...] must appear once, whether at the beginning or end of the output. From https://testanything.org/tap-version-13-specification.html
On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 4:00 AM David Gow <davidgow@google.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 at 08:29, Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com> wrote: > > > > A bug was identified where the KTAP below caused an infinite loop: > > > > TAP version 13 > > ok 4 test_case > > 1..4 > > > > The infinite loop was caused by the parser not parsing a test plan > > if following a test result line. > > > > Fix bug to correctly parse test plan and add error if test plan is > > missing. > > > > Signed-off-by: Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com> > > --- > > Thanks for looking into this: I don't think we want to unconditionally > error if there's no test plan, though. Pretty much no parameterised > tests include one -- it's not always possible to know how many tests > there'll be in advance -- so this triggers all of the time. > > Maybe we can only include an error if we find a test plan line after > an existing result, or something? Hi David! I thought I'd include the error in the first version but I figured it might not be accepted. Technically it is improper KTAP for the test plan to be missing so the error would be correct but because it fires on parameterized tests which is not ideal. I wonder for parameterized tests if we could output a test plan: "1..X" indicating an unknown number of tests or something similar. I'd be happy to implement this. However, I am happy to remove the error for the second version. Thanks! -Rae > > -- David > > > tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py | 12 +++++++----- > > tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py | 5 ++--- > > 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py > > index 29fc27e8949b..5dcbc670e1dc 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py > > +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py > > @@ -761,20 +761,22 @@ def parse_test(lines: LineStream, expected_num: int, log: List[str], is_subtest: > > test.name = "main" > > ktap_line = parse_ktap_header(lines, test, printer) > > test.log.extend(parse_diagnostic(lines)) > > - parse_test_plan(lines, test) > > + plan_line = parse_test_plan(lines, test) > > parent_test = True > > else: > > # If not the main test, attempt to parse a test header containing > > # the KTAP version line and/or subtest header line > > ktap_line = parse_ktap_header(lines, test, printer) > > subtest_line = parse_test_header(lines, test) > > + test.log.extend(parse_diagnostic(lines)) > > + plan_line = parse_test_plan(lines, test) > > parent_test = (ktap_line or subtest_line) > > if parent_test: > > - # If KTAP version line and/or subtest header is found, attempt > > - # to parse test plan and print test header > > - test.log.extend(parse_diagnostic(lines)) > > - parse_test_plan(lines, test) > > print_test_header(test, printer) > > + > > + if parent_test and not plan_line: > > + test.add_error(printer, 'missing test plan!') > > + > > expected_count = test.expected_count > > subtests = [] > > test_num = 1 > > diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py > > index 0bcb0cc002f8..e1e142c1a850 100755 > > --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py > > +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py > > @@ -181,8 +181,7 @@ class KUnitParserTest(unittest.TestCase): > > result = kunit_parser.parse_run_tests( > > kunit_parser.extract_tap_lines( > > file.readlines()), stdout) > > - # A missing test plan is not an error. > > - self.assertEqual(result.counts, kunit_parser.TestCounts(passed=10, errors=0)) > > + self.assertEqual(result.counts, kunit_parser.TestCounts(passed=10, errors=2)) > > self.assertEqual(kunit_parser.TestStatus.SUCCESS, result.status) > > > > def test_no_tests(self): > > @@ -203,7 +202,7 @@ class KUnitParserTest(unittest.TestCase): > > self.assertEqual( > > kunit_parser.TestStatus.NO_TESTS, > > result.subtests[0].subtests[0].status) > > - self.assertEqual(result.counts, kunit_parser.TestCounts(passed=1, errors=1)) > > + self.assertEqual(result.counts, kunit_parser.TestCounts(passed=1, errors=2)) > > > > > > def test_no_kunit_output(self): > > > > base-commit: 0619a4868fc1b32b07fb9ed6c69adc5e5cf4e4b2 > > -- > > 2.48.1.711.g2feabab25a-goog > >
On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 7:26 AM Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 at 10:00, David Gow <davidgow@google.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 at 08:29, Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com> wrote: > > > > > > A bug was identified where the KTAP below caused an infinite loop: > > > > > > TAP version 13 > > > ok 4 test_case > > > 1..4 > > > > > > The infinite loop was caused by the parser not parsing a test plan > > > if following a test result line. > > > > > > Fix bug to correctly parse test plan and add error if test plan is > > > missing. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com> > > Thanks for taking a look at this Rae! I tried to take a look myself > but I could not really get a grip on the parsing logic in the time I > had. > > > Thanks for looking into this: I don't think we want to unconditionally > > error if there's no test plan, though. Pretty much no parameterised > > tests include one -- it's not always possible to know how many tests > > there'll be in advance -- so this triggers all of the time. > > > > Maybe we can only include an error if we find a test plan line after > > an existing result, or something? > > Since I reported this bug, I discovered that the example above is in > fact valid TAP: > > > The plan [...] must appear once, whether at the beginning or end of the output. > > From https://testanything.org/tap-version-13-specification.html Hi! This brings up an interesting question because the parser has been mainly geared towards parsing KTAP (https://docs.kernel.org/dev-tools/ktap.html) rather than TAP. (Although we do try to have backwards compatibility with TAP v14 "Subtest" lines) For example, TAP version 13 1..1 TAP version 13 1..1 ok 1 test_case ok 1 test_suite This would be accepted by the parser without error because it is valid KTAP even though it is not valid TAP v13. The scenario above that caused the infinite loop would be incorrect KTAP (which requires the test plan to follow a version line) but correct TAP v13. So do we accept it without error? Ideally, we would parse based on the version given in the version line. Just an interesting thought. Either way, I will remove the error for now as our parameterized tests don't properly produce a test plan, which causes errors. Thanks! -Rae
Hi Rae, On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 11:02:13AM -0500, Rae Moar wrote: > On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 7:26 AM Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com> wrote: > > Since I reported this bug, I discovered that the example above is in > > fact valid TAP: > > > > > The plan [...] must appear once, whether at the beginning or end of the output. > > > > From https://testanything.org/tap-version-13-specification.html > > Hi! > This brings up an interesting question because the parser has been > mainly geared towards parsing KTAP > (https://docs.kernel.org/dev-tools/ktap.html) rather than TAP. > (Although we do try to have backwards compatibility with TAP v14 > "Subtest" lines) > > For example, > > TAP version 13 > 1..1 > TAP version 13 > 1..1 > ok 1 test_case > ok 1 test_suite > > This would be accepted by the parser without error because it is valid > KTAP even though it is not valid TAP v13. > > The scenario above that caused the infinite loop would be incorrect > KTAP (which requires the test plan to follow a version line) but > correct TAP v13. So do we accept it without error? Ideally, we would > parse based on the version given in the version line. > > Just an interesting thought. Either way, I will remove the error for > now as our parameterized tests don't properly produce a test plan, > which causes errors. OK yeah sounds good. Now I think about it, I should note that I am abusing the KUnit scripts to parse the result of a kselftest run. I just assumed that this would be supported but actually there's no particular reason I should have assumed that :) I would like to have general support in the tree for parsing test output ([K]TAP it's not really a human-readable format IMO... even in the best case like nice tidy KUnit tests I find the structure very hard to read. And without something like 'kunit.py parse' I find it extremely difficult to get a high-level gestalt of how a test run went). But that doesn't mean kunit.py is responsible for the whole kernel tree's output! Still, it would be nice to handle it to the extent that's practical (and at least, with no infinite loops :D).
diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py index 29fc27e8949b..5dcbc670e1dc 100644 --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py @@ -761,20 +761,22 @@ def parse_test(lines: LineStream, expected_num: int, log: List[str], is_subtest: test.name = "main" ktap_line = parse_ktap_header(lines, test, printer) test.log.extend(parse_diagnostic(lines)) - parse_test_plan(lines, test) + plan_line = parse_test_plan(lines, test) parent_test = True else: # If not the main test, attempt to parse a test header containing # the KTAP version line and/or subtest header line ktap_line = parse_ktap_header(lines, test, printer) subtest_line = parse_test_header(lines, test) + test.log.extend(parse_diagnostic(lines)) + plan_line = parse_test_plan(lines, test) parent_test = (ktap_line or subtest_line) if parent_test: - # If KTAP version line and/or subtest header is found, attempt - # to parse test plan and print test header - test.log.extend(parse_diagnostic(lines)) - parse_test_plan(lines, test) print_test_header(test, printer) + + if parent_test and not plan_line: + test.add_error(printer, 'missing test plan!') + expected_count = test.expected_count subtests = [] test_num = 1 diff --git a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py index 0bcb0cc002f8..e1e142c1a850 100755 --- a/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py +++ b/tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py @@ -181,8 +181,7 @@ class KUnitParserTest(unittest.TestCase): result = kunit_parser.parse_run_tests( kunit_parser.extract_tap_lines( file.readlines()), stdout) - # A missing test plan is not an error. - self.assertEqual(result.counts, kunit_parser.TestCounts(passed=10, errors=0)) + self.assertEqual(result.counts, kunit_parser.TestCounts(passed=10, errors=2)) self.assertEqual(kunit_parser.TestStatus.SUCCESS, result.status) def test_no_tests(self): @@ -203,7 +202,7 @@ class KUnitParserTest(unittest.TestCase): self.assertEqual( kunit_parser.TestStatus.NO_TESTS, result.subtests[0].subtests[0].status) - self.assertEqual(result.counts, kunit_parser.TestCounts(passed=1, errors=1)) + self.assertEqual(result.counts, kunit_parser.TestCounts(passed=1, errors=2)) def test_no_kunit_output(self):
A bug was identified where the KTAP below caused an infinite loop: TAP version 13 ok 4 test_case 1..4 The infinite loop was caused by the parser not parsing a test plan if following a test result line. Fix bug to correctly parse test plan and add error if test plan is missing. Signed-off-by: Rae Moar <rmoar@google.com> --- tools/testing/kunit/kunit_parser.py | 12 +++++++----- tools/testing/kunit/kunit_tool_test.py | 5 ++--- 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) base-commit: 0619a4868fc1b32b07fb9ed6c69adc5e5cf4e4b2