Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] test: Add test for partitions

22 Apr 2021

On 4/21/21 3:14 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
...
Hi Sean,
On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 02:36, Sean Anderson sean.anderson@seco.com wrote:
...
On 4/14/21 3:37 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
...
Hi Sean,
On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 at 23:53, Sean Anderson sean.anderson@seco.com wrote:
...
This is technically a library function, but we use MMCs for testing, so
it is easier to do it with DM. At the moment, the only block devices in
sandbox are MMCs (AFAIK) so we just test with those.
Signed-off-by: Sean Anderson sean.anderson@seco.com
Changes in v2:

New
test/dm/Makefile |  1 +
test/dm/part.c   | 76 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 77 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 test/dm/part.c

diff --git a/test/dm/Makefile b/test/dm/Makefile
index f5cc5540e8..7d017f8750 100644
--- a/test/dm/Makefile
+++ b/test/dm/Makefile
@@ -98,5 +98,6 @@ endif
  ifneq ($(CONFIG_EFI_PARTITION),)
  obj-$(CONFIG_FASTBOOT_FLASH_MMC) += fastboot.o
  endif
+obj-$(CONFIG_EFI_PARTITION) += part.o
  endif
  endif # !SPL
diff --git a/test/dm/part.c b/test/dm/part.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..051e9010b6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/test/dm/part.c
@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
+/*


Copyright (C) 2020 Sean Anderson sean.anderson@seco.com


*/


+#include <common.h>
+#include <dm.h>
+#include <mmc.h>
+#include <part.h>
+#include <part_efi.h>
+#include <dm/test.h>
+#include <test/ut.h>



+static int dm_test_part(struct unit_test_state *uts)
+{

  char str_disk_guid[UUID_STR_LEN + 1];


  struct blk_desc *mmc_dev_desc;


  struct disk_partition part_info;


  struct disk_partition parts[2] = {


          {


                  .start = 48, /* GPT data takes up the first 34 blocks or so */


                  .size = 1,


                  .name = "test1",


          },


          {


                  .start = 49,


                  .size = 1,


                  .name = "test2",


          },


  };



  ut_asserteq(1, blk_get_device_by_str("mmc", "1", &mmc_dev_desc));


  if (CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(RANDOM_UUID)) {


          gen_rand_uuid_str(parts[0].uuid, UUID_STR_FORMAT_STD);


          gen_rand_uuid_str(parts[1].uuid, UUID_STR_FORMAT_STD);


          gen_rand_uuid_str(str_disk_guid, UUID_STR_FORMAT_STD);


  }


  ut_assertok(gpt_restore(mmc_dev_desc, str_disk_guid, parts,


                          ARRAY_SIZE(parts)));




+#define test(expected, part_str, whole) \
Can this be a function instead of a macro?
Not one-to-one because ut-asserteq returns on error. This could be
changed to
     ut_asserteq(-ENODEV, test("", true));


but I think a macro is the simplest option.
Well you are using ut_asserteq() in the macro so I don't see why the
macro is better than what you have above, with the code in a function?
That is what we normally do.
I suppose. It doesn't really matter too much IMO, but I will change it
for v3.
--Sean
...
...
--Sean
...
...

  ut_asserteq(expected, \


              part_get_info_by_dev_and_name_or_num("mmc", part_str, \


                                                   &mmc_dev_desc, \


                                                   &part_info, whole))



  test(-ENODEV, "", true);


  env_set("bootdevice", "0");


  test(0, "", true);


  env_set("bootdevice", "1");


  test(1, "", false);


  test(1, "-", false);


  env_set("bootdevice", "");


  test(-EPROTONOSUPPORT, "0", false);


  test(0, "0", true);


  test(0, ":0", true);


  test(0, ".0", true);


  test(0, ".0:0", true);


  test(-EINVAL, "#test1", true);


  test(1, "1", false);


  test(1, "1", true);


  test(-ENOENT, "1:0", false);


  test(0, "1:0", true);


  test(1, "1:1", false);


  test(2, "1:2", false);


  test(1, "1.0", false);


  test(0, "1.0:0", true);


  test(1, "1.0:1", false);


  test(2, "1.0:2", false);


  test(-EINVAL, "1#bogus", false);


  test(1, "1#test1", false);


  test(2, "1#test2", false);



  return 0;



+}
+DM_TEST(dm_test_part, UT_TESTF_SCAN_PDATA | UT_TESTF_SCAN_FDT);
2.25.1
Regards,
Simon

    