[EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] EDK2 Host-Based Unit Test RFC (Now with docs!)
Yao, Jiewen
jiewen.yao at intel.com
Mon Dec 16 22:03:30 UTC 2019
No problem for me.
Thank you
Yao Jiewen
From: Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney at intel.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 5:28 AM
To: Yao, Jiewen <jiewen.yao at intel.com>; devel at edk2.groups.io; bret.barkelew at microsoft.com; Andrew Fish <afish at apple.com>; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney at intel.com>
Cc: rfc at edk2.groups.io
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] EDK2 Host-Based Unit Test RFC (Now with docs!)
Hi Jiewen,
Many of your responses are related to fuzz testing.
Can we focus current infrastructure on host based unit testing and minimizing the content to support that testing type.
Then, add a new subdirectory below Test in the future to support fuzz testing. This way, lib instances can be tuned to the test infrastructure/subsystem in use. Trying to make one version of the host libs for multiple test methodologies it making is more complex and hander to maintain.
Thanks,
Mike
From: Yao, Jiewen <jiewen.yao at intel.com<mailto:jiewen.yao at intel.com>>
Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2019 4:38 PM
To: devel at edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel at edk2.groups.io>; bret.barkelew at microsoft.com<mailto:bret.barkelew at microsoft.com>; Andrew Fish <afish at apple.com<mailto:afish at apple.com>>; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney at intel.com<mailto:michael.d.kinney at intel.com>>
Cc: rfc at edk2.groups.io<mailto:rfc at edk2.groups.io>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] EDK2 Host-Based Unit Test RFC (Now with docs!)
Answer the question 5,6,7,8, which are related to HBFA.
For other MSFT unit test, I don't have strong opinion. I am OK with that.
Thank you
Yao Jiewen
From: devel at edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel at edk2.groups.io> <devel at edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel at edk2.groups.io>> On Behalf Of Bret Barkelew via Groups.Io
Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2019 8:47 AM
To: devel at edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel at edk2.groups.io>; Andrew Fish <afish at apple.com<mailto:afish at apple.com>>; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney at intel.com<mailto:michael.d.kinney at intel.com>>
Cc: rfc at edk2.groups.io<mailto:rfc at edk2.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] EDK2 Host-Based Unit Test RFC (Now with docs!)
Mike,
I think I've gotten all the feedback here and all the action items from our call. The current branch should be good to go, minus the couple of things that Intel was going to look into.
Thanks!
- Bret
From: Bret Barkelew<mailto:Bret.Barkelew at microsoft.com>
Sent: Friday, December 6, 2019 2:21 PM
To: devel at edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel at edk2.groups.io>; Andrew Fish<mailto:afish at apple.com>; Kinney, Michael D<mailto:michael.d.kinney at intel.com>
Cc: rfc at edk2.groups.io<mailto:rfc at edk2.groups.io>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] EDK2 Host-Based Unit Test RFC (Now with docs!)
1. I see that MdePkg adds a dependency on UnitTestPkg. This makes UnitTestPkg the root package when building and running host based unit tests. This makes sense, but good to highlight that all packages that use host based tests will introduce a new package dependency on UnitTestPkg.
* Since the dependency only applies to unit tests, can we update the DependencyCheck plugin to support listing dependencies for FW components separate from dependencies for unit tests?
* Can move. Capability is there, but mistakenly added to the wrong section.
1. I see UnitTestPkg declares 6 new lib classes. Are all 6 classes intended to be used directly from a unit test case? If some of these are only intended to be used from the framework inside the UnitTestPkg can we make them private?
* Because there are different instances in multiple places (and conceivably more in the future), we don't see how we could make them private.
1. In the MdePkg, I see a new top level directory called 'HostLibrary'. Since these lib instances are only used from a host based test, can they be moved into the 'Test' directory?
* Can move.
1. MdePkg/MdePkgTest.dsc.
* Can this DSC file be moved into the 'Test' directory?
i. Yes
* I see this DSC file only supports VS today. How much work is it to add GCC support?
i. Don't know. This is an item on our list, but lower priority and not a blocker.
1. MdePkg/HostLibrary/BaseLibHost
* Why are there 2 INFs. One with ASM and one without ASM? Can we just use the one with ASM and assume NASM is installed?
* I see the purpose of this lib instance is to call the
* SetJump()/LongJump(). So these implementations always work? It looks like it assumes BASE_LIBRARY_JUMP_BUFFER is identical to the host OS user mode application setjmp()/longjmp() state.
* Why are DRx and CRx registers emulated? I would think and code that depends on read/writing these registers would not be compatible with host based testing. Can we change to ASSERT (FALSE)?
* PatchInstructionX86() - I suspect this will not work in a host based environment because it is self modifying code. Should it be ASSERT (FALSE)?
* Libraries were taken directly from the Intel work in HBFA. They worked so we kept them. We're just as interested in the answers to these questions as you are.
[Jiewen] Here is the answer:
Some tools requires source build, such AFL-CC or KLEE to get the result or optimization. They do analysis besides compiling. These tools only work on C-language. That why we need non-asm build.
Some test case need access CRx/DRx just as the pre-condition and post-condition, such as MTRR test. We cannot use ASSERT.
Generally, a big problem of current based lib is that it mixes the hardware register access (such as CR/DR, CPUIR, MSR, mode switch) into a common software lib (such as linked list, math, string, checksum). I hope we can refactory the based lib to separate the hardware access part, such as a BaseRegAccessLib, similar to IoLib, PciLib.
Agree on PatchInstructionX86(). We should use ASSERT(). If we encounter a case that requires this function, we consider how to make it work later.
1. MdePkg/HostLibrary/DebugLibHost
* What is '#ifndef TEST_WITH_KLEE'
* What is the 'PatchFormat()' function? It is always disabled with if (0).
* Are the PCDs to set the debug message levels disabled on purpose? (DebugPrintEnabled(), DebugPrintLevelEnabled(), DebugCodeEnabled())
* Libraries were taken directly from the Intel work in HBFA. They worked so we kept them. We're just as interested in the answers to these questions as you are.
[Jiewen] Here is the answer:
This is special optimization for KLEE - a symbolic execution tool. We hope to reduce the unnecessary branch. Or the KELL might not resolve the function.
PatchFormat() is an old function. Deadcode can be removed now.
In the beginning, PCD is not supported. And we don't find a use case to control PCD in such detail level. To simplify thing, we just don't use it. An on/off control (via HOST_DEBUG_MESSAGE) is good enough. If there is real use case coming up, we can see how to enable it.
1. MdePkg/HostLibrary/BaseMemoryLibHost
* Why can't we use MdePkg/Library/BaseMemoryLib/BaseMemoryLib/inf instead and reduce the number of host specific lib instances?
* Libraries were taken directly from the Intel work in HBFA. They worked so we kept them. We're just as interested in the answers to these questions as you are.
[Jiewen] Here is the answer:
This is special optimization for fuzzing tool. If we use standard C lib, the compiler knows it and don't insert branch analysis. If we use our own implementation, the compiler has no idea, and try to do analysis. That is unnecessary.
1. MdePkg/HostLibrary/MemoryAllocationLibHost
* Why is are memcpy(), assert(), memset() used in this lib? I would expect this lib instance to match the UefiMemoryAllocationLib with the only the use of malloc() and free() to replace the UEFI Boot Services calls.
* Libraries were taken directly from the Intel work in HBFA. They worked so we kept them. We're just as interested in the answers to these questions as you are.
[Jiewen] Here is the answer:
Similar to 7, using standard-C function can reduce the unnecessary analysis for analysis tool.
1. Host library instance naming conventions.
* The current naming convention uses the environment as a prefix(e.g. Pei, Smm, Uefi) and the services the lib instance uses as a post fix. Would it make more sense to use 'Host' as a prefix instead of a postfix in the lib instance names?
* I don't know if there's a 1:1 relationship with these. For some library classes (that you might have host versions of), the class itself is the PeiSomethingLib, and the host version would be the PeiSomethingLibHost. No?
1. Unicode vs ASCII strings
* I see InitUnitTestFramework(), CreateUnitTestSuite(), and AddTestCase() all take Unicode strings for the labels. I also see extra code to convert gEfiCallerBaseName from ASCII to Unicode to use it as a short name of a test framework. I think it would be simpler if the parameters to these APIs were ASCII and the framework can convert to Unicode if needed.
* No strong feelings, but we already have a bunch of tests written this way. Since the UnitTestLib is an abstraction that works as well in Shell as in the Host, going with Unicode strings seemed to match the art for Shell apps (since the framework was written for Shell first).
1. Will InitUnitTestFramework() and CreateUnitTestSuite() always be called in pairs? If so, can we combine these to a single API?
* I see the SafeIntLib example create a single framework and multiple test suites. Perhaps we can have a single CreateUnitTestSuite() API where Framework is an IN/OUT and if it is passed in as NULL, the Framework handle is created.
i. It's not always in pairs. You would only have a single framework init, but could have multiple suites.
* I see a pattern where the CreateUnitTestSuite() 'Package' parameter is used as a prefix to every call to AddTestCase() in the 'ClassName' parameter. Can we simplify AddTestCase() so it only need to pass in the name of the unit test case, and the framework can append Package and the unit test case name?
i. Right now, our tests just coincidentally share similar names with the packages, but we don't feel this is axiomatic and don't want to force this naming on others, who may be trying to bolt into other reporting structures.
1. I see the use of the 'Fw' variable as a shorthand for 'Framework'. Can we use something other than 'Fw'. It may be confused with 'Firmware'.
* No real arguments. Wouldn't fight a find-replace, but it'll just be a bunch of touches as we commit.
1. UnitTestPkg/Include/UnitTestTypes.h
* I see several hard coded string lengths. Since this runs in a host environment and strings can always be allocated, can the hard coded lengths be removed? Update the structs to use pointers to strings instead of string arrays, and the framework can manage alloc() and free()?
i. Given that this framework is designed to be nimble enough to work in PEI and SMM and other constrictive environments, we wanted to keep fixed sizing.
* How are Fingerprints used? The idea of using as hash as a unique identifier is a good idea. How is the hash calculated? What unit test code artifacts are used so developers know what parameters must be unique? Can we just decide to use a specific hash algorithm/size and the structure can be a pointer to an allocated buffer instead of a fixed size array to make it easy to change the algorithm/size in the future?
i. Fingerprints are unique IDs to make sure that serialize/unserialized state matches the tests upon re-entry. I'm not married to MD5, but it needs to be predictably unique, and carried with the framework. I would not want to make any requirements on CryptoLib, since these aren't crypto-strong.
* Update all the strings to be ASCII? See Unicode vs ASCII above.
i. Ideally not, unless there's a strong use case.
* UNIT_TEST_SAVE_TEST - The last field is a variable sized array, so it can be a formal field.
i. Not opposed, but don't really want to make the change myself. Is there a style guide that this is breaking?
* UNIT_TEST_SAVE_CONTEXT - - The last field is a variable sized array, so it can be a formal field.
* UNIT_TEST_SAVE_HEADER - Can the last 3 fields be changed to pointers and be formal fields?
* Do the structures really need to be packed? Specially with the changes suggested above? Is the intent to potentially share data stored on disk between different host execution environments that may have different width architectures?
i. That's an interesting point. Could you draw up your suggestion and submit a PR?
1. UnitTestPkg - UnitTestLib.h
* Can you provide more context for the APIs SaveFrameworkState(), SaveFrameworkStateAndQuit(), SaveFrameworkStateAndReboot(), SetFrameworkBootNextDevice(). I do not see any Load() functions, so how would a set of tests be resumed? If these do not apply to host based tests, should these be split out to a different lib class?
i. I'll improve the documentation around these functions. I will acknowledge, however, that this is an interface that I expect to evolve as we figure out what kinds of tests the community wants support for "out of the box". If we want to easily enable tests around - for example - ExitBootServices, we will likely want to tweak this going forward to its simplest form. The version we have here was sufficient to enable the test cases that we've currently written.
1. UnitTestPkg/Library/UnitTestLib
* I see an implementation of MD5. We should not do our own. We should use an approved implementation such as OpenSSL.
i. Happy to discuss another implementation, but this is not crypto-strong. It's just for uniqueness. A sufficiently long CRC would probably work, too.
1. UnitTestPkg/Library/UnitTestTerminationLibTbd
* Do we really need this lib instance now?
i. This is here so that we can figure out what this should look like for a host. Host obviously wouldn't reset, but could conceivably quit. Or maybe that doesn't make any sense for a host.
- Bret
From: devel at edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel at edk2.groups.io> <devel at edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel at edk2.groups.io>> on behalf of Bret Barkelew via Groups.Io <bret.barkelew=microsoft.com at groups.io<mailto:bret.barkelew=microsoft.com at groups.io>>
Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2019 10:24:21 AM
To: Andrew Fish <afish at apple.com<mailto:afish at apple.com>>; devel at edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel at edk2.groups.io> <devel at edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel at edk2.groups.io>>; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney at intel.com<mailto:michael.d.kinney at intel.com>>
Cc: rfc at edk2.groups.io<mailto:rfc at edk2.groups.io> <rfc at edk2.groups.io<mailto:rfc at edk2.groups.io>>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] EDK2 Host-Based Unit Test RFC (Now with docs!)
Andrew,
I agree with your points.
Mike,
You've got a lot more there. Let me take a look and update the draft. I'll ping back ASAP.
- Bret
From: Andrew Fish<mailto:afish at apple.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2019 9:50 AM
To: devel at edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel at edk2.groups.io>; Kinney, Michael D<mailto:michael.d.kinney at intel.com>
Cc: Bret Barkelew<mailto:Bret.Barkelew at microsoft.com>; rfc at edk2.groups.io<mailto:rfc at edk2.groups.io>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] EDK2 Host-Based Unit Test RFC (Now with docs!)
Mike,
I like and agree with your comments.
On the UnitTestPkg(s) dependency issue I think it would make sense to move as much as possible into the *Pkg/Test/ ( *Pkg/HostLibrary, MdePkg/MdePkgTest.dsc, etc.) directory structure. It looks like for implementation specific tests we skip the Test directory and drop the UnitTest or FuzzTest directly into modules directory. Maybe we should follow the same pattern as *Pkg/Test and have a Test directory? This will help minimize the number of "reserved" directories we need for managing the testing. Have a standardized directory structure will make it easier to differentiate the code from tests while doing `git grep` or other forms of code spelunking.
A Host-Based Unit Test for a Library makes sense as you can link directly against the library and test it. A Host-Based Unit Test for Protocol/PPI/GUID [1] seems a little more complex. It is easy enough to write tests for the interfaces but what APIs do you call to get access to the protocol?
Per our conversation at the Stewards meeting I think make sense to try to roll out the testing of libraries as the 1st phase. The mocking required for drivers could get quite complex and let us not get bogged down in all that to get something working.
[1] *Pkg/Test/UnitTest/[Library|Protocol|Ppi|Guid]
Thanks,
Andrew Fish
On Dec 2, 2019, at 3:12 PM, Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kinney at intel.com<mailto:michael.d.kinney at intel.com>> wrote:
Hi Bret,
Thanks for posting this content. Host based unit testing is a very valuable addition to the CI checks.
I have the following comments:
1. I see that MdePkg adds a dependency on UnitTestPkg. This makes UnitTestPkg the root package when building and running host based unit tests. This makes sense, but good to highlight that all packages that use host based tests will introduce a new package dependency on UnitTestPkg.
* Since the dependency only applies to unit tests, can we update the DependencyCheck plugin to support listing dependencies for FW components separate from dependencies for unit tests?
1. I see UnitTestPkg declares 6 new lib classes. Are all 6 classes intended to be used directly from a unit test case? If some of these are only intended to be used from the framework inside the UnitTestPkg can we make them private?
2. In the MdePkg, I see a new top level directory called 'HostLibrary'. Since these lib instances are only used from a host based test, can they be moved into the 'Test' directory?
3. MdePkg/MdePkgTest.dsc.
* Can this DSC file be moved into the 'Test' directory?
* I see this DSC file only supports VS today. How much work is it to add GCC support?
1. MdePkg/HostLibrary/BaseLibHost
* Why are there 2 INFs. One with ASM and one without ASM? Can we just use the one with ASM and assume NASM is installed?
* I see the purpose of this lib instance is to call the
* SetJump()/LongJump(). So these implementations always work? It looks like it assumes BASE_LIBRARY_JUMP_BUFFER is identical to the host OS user mode applicationsetjmp()/longjmp() state.
* Why are DRx and CRx registers emulated? I would think and code that depends on read/writing these registers would not be compatible with host based testing. Can we change to ASSERT (FALSE)?
* PatchInstructionX86() - I suspect this will not work in a host based environment because it is self modifying code. Should it be ASSERT (FALSE)?
1. MdePkg/HostLibrary/DebugLibHost
* What is '#ifndef TEST_WITH_KLEE'
* What is the 'PatchFormat()' function? It is always disabled with if (0).
* Are the PCDs to set the debug message levels disabled on purpose? (DebugPrintEnabled(), DebugPrintLevelEnabled(), DebugCodeEnabled())
1. MdePkg/HostLibrary/BaseMemoryLibHost
* Why can't we use MdePkg/Library/BaseMemoryLib/BaseMemoryLib/inf instead and reduce the number of host specific lib instances?
1. MdePkg/HostLibrary/MemoryAllocationLibHost
* Why is are memcpy(), assert(), memset() used in this lib? I would expect this lib instance to match the UefiMemoryAllocationLib with the only the use of malloc() and free() to replace the UEFI Boot Services calls.
1. Host library instance naming conventions.
* The current naming convention uses the environment as a prefix(e.g. Pei, Smm, Uefi) and the services the lib instance uses as a post fix. Would it make more sense to use 'Host' as a prefix instead of a postfix in the lib instance names?
1. Unicode vs ASCII strings
* I see InitUnitTestFramework(), CreateUnitTestSuite(), and AddTestCase() all take Unicode strings for the labels. I also see extra code to convert gEfiCallerBaseName from ASCII to Unicode to use it as a short name of a test framework. I think it would be simpler if the parameters to these APIs were ASCII and the framework can convert to Unicode if needed.
1. Will InitUnitTestFramework() and CreateUnitTestSuite() always be called in pairs? If so, can we combine these to a single API?
* I see the SafeIntLib example create a single framework and multiple test suites. Perhaps we can have a single CreateUnitTestSuite() API where Framework is an IN/OUT and if it is passed in as NULL, the Framework handle is created.
* I see a pattern where the CreateUnitTestSuite() 'Package' parameter is used as a prefix to every call to AddTestCase() in the 'ClassName' parameter. Can we simplify AddTestCase() so it only need to pass in the name of the unit test case, and the framework can append Package and the unit test case name?
1. I see the use of the 'Fw' variable as a shorthand for 'Framework'. Can we use something other than 'Fw'. It may be confused with 'Firmware'.
2. UnitTestPkg/Include/UnitTestTypes.h
* I see several hard coded string lengths. Since this runs in a host environment and strings can always be allocated, can the hard coded lengths be removed? Update the structs to use pointers to strings instead of string arrays, and the framework can manage alloc() and free()?
* How are Fingerprints used? The idea of using as hash as a unique identifier is a good idea. How is the hash calculated? What unit test code artifacts are used so developers know what parameters must be unique? Can we just decide to use a specific hash algorithm/size and the structure can be a pointer to an allocated buffer instead of a fixed size array to make it easy to change the algorithm/size in the future?
* Update all the strings to be ASCII? See Unicode vs ASCII above.
* UNIT_TEST_SAVE_TEST - The last field is a variable sized array, so it can be a formal field.
* UNIT_TEST_SAVE_CONTEXT - - The last field is a variable sized array, so it can be a formal field.
* UNIT_TEST_SAVE_HEADER - Can the last 3 fields be changed to pointers and be formal fields?
* Do the structures really need to be packed? Specially with the changes suggested above? Is the intent to potentially share data stored on disk between different host execution environments that may have different width architectures?
1. UnitTestPkg - UnitTestLib.h
* Can you provide more context for the APIs SaveFrameworkState(), SaveFrameworkStateAndQuit(), SaveFrameworkStateAndReboot(), SetFrameworkBootNextDevice(). I do not see any Load() functions, so how would a set of tests be resumed? If these do not apply to host based tests, should these be split out to a different lib class?
1. UnitTestPkg/Library/UnitTestLib
* I see an implementation of MD5. We should not do our own. We should use an approved implementation such as OpenSSL.
1. UnitTestPkg/Library/UnitTestTerminationLibTbd
* Do we really need this lib instance now?
Thanks,
Mike
From: devel at edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel at edk2.groups.io> <devel at edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel at edk2.groups.io>> On Behalf Of Bret Barkelew via Groups.Io
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 11:39 PM
To: devel at edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel at edk2.groups.io>
Subject: [edk2-devel] EDK2 Host-Based Unit Test RFC (Now with docs!)
Now that CI has landed in edk2/master, we'd like to get the basic framework for unittesting staged as well. Target intercept date would be immediately after the 2019/11 stabilization, so we wanted to go ahead and get comments now.
The host unittest framework consists of five primary pieces:
- The test library (Cmocka)
- Support libraries (Found in UnitTestPkg)
- The test support plugins (HostUnitTestComilerPlugin, HostUnitTestDxeCompleteCheck, HostBasedUnitTestRunner)
- The configuration in the package-based *.ci.yaml file and package-based Test.dsc
- The tests themselves
We have a demo branch set up at:
https://github.com/corthon/edk2-staging/tree/edk2-host-test_v2<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fcorthon%2Fedk2-staging%2Ftree%2Fedk2-host-test_v2&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C6eac9932f3f640dd65ac08d778e731e3%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637110806683189828&sdata=JQ%2BoWxlEBOK2sH55cRAPVa3OpAxTsm6eHcdbWSo9CVo%3D&reserved=0>
We also have a demo build pipeline at:
https://dev.azure.com/tianocore/edk2-ci-play/_build?definitionId=36&_a=summary<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdev.azure.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2-ci-play%2F_build%3FdefinitionId%3D36%26_a%3Dsummary&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C6eac9932f3f640dd65ac08d778e731e3%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637110806683189828&sdata=wBwn1ehjyTmYNKVSvlEZSXK5qyeu4EPAL7FzdYntnt4%3D&reserved=0>
The current demo branch contains a single test in MdePkg for SafeIntLib (module file MdePkg\Test\UnitTest\Library\BaseSafeIntLib\TestBaseSafeIntLib.inf). This test is automatically detected by the HostUnitTestComilerPlugin and run by the HostBasedUnitTestRunner as part of the CI process.
A few notes about the current demo:
1) The demo currently only works on Windows build chains, but there's no reason to believe that it can't work equally well on Linux build chains, and are happy to work with anyone to get it there.
2) The demo currently has four failing conditions that can be seen towards the end of MdePkg "Build and Test" log file for this build:
https://dev.azure.com/tianocore/edk2-ci-play/_build/results?buildId=2813<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdev.azure.com%2Ftianocore%2Fedk2-ci-play%2F_build%2Fresults%3FbuildId%3D2590&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C6eac9932f3f640dd65ac08d778e731e3%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637110806683199782&sdata=1zd2oq8zRZUn3%2FUiGDuJZEZ5M0srtc2bqoa0%2BLbZB3s%3D&reserved=0>
"WARNING - Test SafeInt16ToChar8 - Status
d:\a\1\s\MdePkg\Test\UnitTest\Library\BaseSafeIntLib\TestBaseSafeIntLib.c:302: error: Failure!
WARNING - TestBaseSafeIntLib.exe Test Failed
WARNING - Test SafeInt32ToChar8 - Status
d:\a\1\s\MdePkg\Test\UnitTest\Library\BaseSafeIntLib\TestBaseSafeIntLib.c:638: error: Failure!
WARNING - TestBaseSafeIntLib.exe Test Failed
WARNING - Test SafeIntnToChar8 - Status
d:\a\1\s\MdePkg\Test\UnitTest\Library\BaseSafeIntLib\TestBaseSafeIntLib.c:1051: error: Failure!
WARNING - TestBaseSafeIntLib.exe Test Failed
WARNING - Test SafeInt64ToChar8 - Status
d:\a\1\s\MdePkg\Test\UnitTest\Library\BaseSafeIntLib\TestBaseSafeIntLib.c:1456: error: Failure!"
These failures seem to be legitimate and further work should be done by the community to decide whether the test case is correct or the library is correct, but one of them needs to change.
3) Current demo pulls in test collateral from a fork of the edk2-test repo. This repo is currently *very* heavy due to the history of the UEFI SCT project and the number of binaries that it pulls down. It's possible that we (the community) need to select a better place for this code to live. Maybe in edk2 primary (though it's not explicitly firmware code, so it seems unnecessary). Maybe in a new edk2-test2 repo or something like that.
There's an RFC doc here: https://github.com/corthon/edk2-staging/blob/edk2-host-test_v2/Readme-RFC.md<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fcorthon%2Fedk2-staging%2Fblob%2Fedk2-host-test_v2%2FReadme-RFC.md&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C6eac9932f3f640dd65ac08d778e731e3%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637110806683199782&sdata=1nq1mHjsbSZj4IQM5RBwSrvaQxO5cmDlTvf7VYNDV%2FA%3D&reserved=0>
And a usage guide here: https://github.com/corthon/edk2-staging/blob/edk2-host-test_v2/UnitTestPkg/ReadMe.md<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fcorthon%2Fedk2-staging%2Fblob%2Fedk2-host-test_v2%2FUnitTestPkg%2FReadMe.md&data=02%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7C6eac9932f3f640dd65ac08d778e731e3%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637110806683209750&sdata=0jRQ2Rzr9PWSYJ1YDs7l2aFS3PfAnTbTousYYe8IWTw%3D&reserved=0>
Once again, would love to get this into EDK2 master after stabilization, and most of this has previously been shopped around in other discussion threads. This is just where the rubber meets the road and is the minimal subset of code that needs to land for folks to start contributing unittests against the core libraries that can be run as part of any CI pass.
Thanks!
- Bret
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#52262): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/52262
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/67560953/1813853
Group Owner: devel+owner at edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [edk2-devel-archive at redhat.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/edk2-devel-archive/attachments/20191216/02855991/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 241 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/edk2-devel-archive/attachments/20191216/02855991/attachment.png>
More information about the edk2-devel-archive
mailing list