| .. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 |
| |
| ========================== |
| Frequently Asked Questions |
| ========================== |
| |
| How is this different from Autotest, kselftest, etc? |
| ==================================================== |
| KUnit is a unit testing framework. Autotest, kselftest (and some others) are |
| not. |
| |
| A `unit test <https://martinfowler.com/bliki/UnitTest.html>`_ is supposed to |
| test a single unit of code in isolation, hence the name. A unit test should be |
| the finest granularity of testing and as such should allow all possible code |
| paths to be tested in the code under test; this is only possible if the code |
| under test is very small and does not have any external dependencies outside of |
| the test's control like hardware. |
| |
| There are no testing frameworks currently available for the kernel that do not |
| require installing the kernel on a test machine or in a VM and all require |
| tests to be written in userspace and run on the kernel under test; this is true |
| for Autotest, kselftest, and some others, disqualifying any of them from being |
| considered unit testing frameworks. |
| |
| Does KUnit support running on architectures other than UML? |
| =========================================================== |
| |
| Yes, well, mostly. |
| |
| For the most part, the KUnit core framework (what you use to write the tests) |
| can compile to any architecture; it compiles like just another part of the |
| kernel and runs when the kernel boots, or when built as a module, when the |
| module is loaded. However, there is some infrastructure, |
| like the KUnit Wrapper (``tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py``) that does not support |
| other architectures. |
| |
| In short, this means that, yes, you can run KUnit on other architectures, but |
| it might require more work than using KUnit on UML. |
| |
| For more information, see :ref:`kunit-on-non-uml`. |
| |
| What is the difference between a unit test and these other kinds of tests? |
| ========================================================================== |
| Most existing tests for the Linux kernel would be categorized as an integration |
| test, or an end-to-end test. |
| |
| - A unit test is supposed to test a single unit of code in isolation, hence the |
| name. A unit test should be the finest granularity of testing and as such |
| should allow all possible code paths to be tested in the code under test; this |
| is only possible if the code under test is very small and does not have any |
| external dependencies outside of the test's control like hardware. |
| - An integration test tests the interaction between a minimal set of components, |
| usually just two or three. For example, someone might write an integration |
| test to test the interaction between a driver and a piece of hardware, or to |
| test the interaction between the userspace libraries the kernel provides and |
| the kernel itself; however, one of these tests would probably not test the |
| entire kernel along with hardware interactions and interactions with the |
| userspace. |
| - An end-to-end test usually tests the entire system from the perspective of the |
| code under test. For example, someone might write an end-to-end test for the |
| kernel by installing a production configuration of the kernel on production |
| hardware with a production userspace and then trying to exercise some behavior |
| that depends on interactions between the hardware, the kernel, and userspace. |