[PATCH linux-kselftest/test v1] apparmor: add AppArmor KUnit tests for policy unpack

John Johansen john.johansen at canonical.com
Thu Oct 31 01:40:03 UTC 2019

On 10/30/19 1:11 PM, Iurii Zaikin wrote:
>> Why can't unit tests live with the code they're testing? They're already
>> logically tied together; what's the harm there? This needn't be the case
>> for ALL tests, etc. The test driver could still live externally. The
>> test in the other .c would just have exported functions... ?
> Curiously enough, this approach has been adopted by D 2.0 where unittests are
> members of the class under test:  https://digitalmars.com/d/2.0/unittest.html
> but such approach is not mainstream.
> I personally like the idea of testing the lowest level bits in isolation even if
> they are not a part of any interface. I think that specifying the
> interface using
> unit tests and ensuring implementation correctness are complementary but

fwiw this is my preferred approach as well

> I haven't had much luck arguing this with our esteemed colleagues.

surprise, surprise /s

More information about the Linux-security-module-archive mailing list