285 lines
12 KiB
Markdown
285 lines
12 KiB
Markdown
# Unit testing coreboot
|
||
|
||
## Preface
|
||
First part of this document, Introduction, comprises disambiguation for what
|
||
unit testing is and what is not. This definition will be a basis for the whole
|
||
paper.
|
||
|
||
Next, Rationale, explains why to use unit testing and how coreboot specifically
|
||
may benefit from it.
|
||
|
||
This is followed by evaluation of different available free C unit test
|
||
frameworks. Firstly, collection of requirements is provided. Secondly, there is
|
||
a description of a few selected candidates. Finally, requirements are applied to
|
||
candidates to see if they might be a good fit.
|
||
|
||
Fourth part is a summary of evaluation, with proposal of unit test framework
|
||
for coreboot to be used.
|
||
|
||
Finally, Implementation proposal paragraph touches how build system and coreboot
|
||
codebase in general should be organized, in order to support unit testing. This
|
||
comprises couple of design considerations which need to be addressed.
|
||
|
||
## Introduction
|
||
A unit test is supposed to test a single unit of code in isolation. In C
|
||
language (in contrary to OOP) unit usually means a function. One may also
|
||
consider unit under test to be a single compilation unit which exposes some
|
||
API (set of functions). A function, talking to some external component can be
|
||
tested if this component can be mocked out.
|
||
|
||
In other words (looking from C compilation angle), there should be no extra
|
||
dependencies (executables) required beside unit under test and test harness in
|
||
order to compile unit test binary. Test harness, beside code examining a
|
||
routines, may comprise test framework implementation.
|
||
|
||
It is hard to apply this strict definition of unit test to firmware code in
|
||
practice, mostly due to constraints on speed of execution and size of final
|
||
executable. coreboot codebase often cannot be adjusted to be testable. Because
|
||
of this, coreboot unit testing subsystem should allow to include some additional
|
||
source object files beside unit under test. That being said, the default and
|
||
goal wherever possible, should be to isolate unit under test from other parts.
|
||
|
||
Unit testing is not an integration testing and it doesn't replace it. First of
|
||
all, integration tests cover larger set of components and interactions between
|
||
them. Positive integration test result gives more confidence than a positive
|
||
unit test does. Furthermore, unit tests are running on the build machine, while
|
||
integration tests usually are executed on the target (or simulator).
|
||
|
||
## Rationale
|
||
Considering above, what is the benefit of unit testing, especially keeping in
|
||
mind that coreboot is low-level firmware? Unit tests should be quick, thus may
|
||
be executed frequently during development process. It is much easier to build
|
||
and run a unit test on a build machine, than any integration test. This in turn
|
||
may be used by dev to gather extra confidence early during code development
|
||
process. Actually developer may even write unit tests earlier than the code -
|
||
see [TDD](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test-driven_development) concept.
|
||
|
||
That being said, unit testing embedded C code is a difficult task, due to
|
||
significant amount of dependencies on underlying hardware. Mocking can handle
|
||
some hardware dependencies. However, complex mocks make the unit test
|
||
susceptible to failing and can require significant development effort.
|
||
|
||
Writing unit tests for a code (both new and currently existing) may be favorable
|
||
for the code quality. It is not only about finding bugs, but in general - easily
|
||
testable code is a good code.
|
||
|
||
coreboot benefits the most from testing common libraries (lib/, commonlib/,
|
||
payloads/libpayload) and coreboot infrastructure (console/, device/, security/).
|
||
|
||
## Evaluation of unit testing frameworks
|
||
|
||
### Requirements
|
||
Requirements for unit testing frameworks:
|
||
|
||
* Easy to use
|
||
* Few dependencies
|
||
|
||
Standard C library is all we should need
|
||
|
||
* Isolation between tests
|
||
* Support for mocking
|
||
* Support for some machine parsable output
|
||
* Compiler similarity
|
||
|
||
Compiler for the host _must_ support the same language standards as the target
|
||
compiler. Ideally the same toolchain should be used for building firmware
|
||
executables and test binaries, however the host complier will be used to build
|
||
unit tests, whereas the coreboot toolchain will be used for building the
|
||
firmware executables. For some targets, the host compiler and the target
|
||
compiler could be the same, but this is not a requirement.
|
||
|
||
* Same language for tests and code
|
||
|
||
Unit tests will be written in C, because coreboot code is also written in C
|
||
|
||
### Desirables
|
||
|
||
* Easy to integrate with build system/build tools
|
||
|
||
Ideally JUnit-like XML output format for Jenkins
|
||
|
||
* Popularity is a plus
|
||
|
||
We want a larger community for a couple of reasons. Firstly, easier access to
|
||
people with knowledge and tutorials. Secondly, bug fixes for the top of tree
|
||
are more frequent and known issues are usually shorter in the pending state.
|
||
Last but not least, larger reviewer pool means better and easier upstream
|
||
improvements that we would like to submit.
|
||
|
||
* Extra features may be a plus
|
||
* Compatible license
|
||
|
||
This should not be a blocker, since test binaries are not distributed.
|
||
However ideally compatible with GPL.
|
||
|
||
* IDE integration
|
||
|
||
### Candidates
|
||
There is a lot of frameworks which allow unit testing C code
|
||
([list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unit_testing_frameworks#C) from
|
||
Wikipedia). While not all of them were evaluated, because that would take an
|
||
excessive amount of time, couple of them were selected based on the good
|
||
opinions among C devs, popularity and fitting above criteria.
|
||
|
||
* [SputUnit](https://www.use-strict.de/sput-unit-testing/)
|
||
* [GoogleTest](https://github.com/google/googletest)
|
||
* [Cmocka](https://cmocka.org/)
|
||
* [Unity](http://www.throwtheswitch.org/unity) (CMock, Ceedling)
|
||
|
||
We looked at several other test frameworks, but decided not to do a full evaluation
|
||
for various reasons such as functionality, size of the developer community, or
|
||
compatibility.
|
||
|
||
### Evaluation
|
||
* [SputUnit](https://www.use-strict.de/sput-unit-testing/)
|
||
* Pros
|
||
* No dependencies, one header file to include - that’s all
|
||
* Pure C
|
||
* Very easy to use
|
||
* BSD license
|
||
* Cons
|
||
* Main repo doesn’t have support for generating JUnit XML reports for
|
||
Jenkins to consume - this feature is available only on the fork from
|
||
SputUnit called “Sput_report”. It makes it niche in a niche, so there are
|
||
some reservations whether support for this will be satisfactory
|
||
* No support for mocks
|
||
* Not too popular
|
||
* No automatic test registration
|
||
* [GoogleTest](https://github.com/google/googletest)
|
||
* Pros
|
||
* Automatic test registration
|
||
* Support for different output formats (including XML for Jenkins)
|
||
* Good support, widely used, the biggest and the most active community out
|
||
of all frameworks that were investigated
|
||
* Available as a package in the most common distributions
|
||
* Test fixtures easily available
|
||
* Well documented
|
||
* Easy to integrate with an IDE
|
||
* BSD license
|
||
* Cons
|
||
* Requires C++11 compiler
|
||
* To make most out of it (use GMock) C++ knowledge is required
|
||
* [Cmocka](https://cmocka.org/)
|
||
* Pros
|
||
* Self-contained, autonomous framework
|
||
* Pure C
|
||
* API is well documented
|
||
* Multiple output formats (including XML for Jenkins)
|
||
* Available as a package in the most common distributions
|
||
* Used in some popular open source projects (libssh, OpenVPN, Samba)
|
||
* Test fixtures available
|
||
* Support for exception handling
|
||
* Cons
|
||
* No automatic test registration
|
||
* It will require some effort to make it work from within an IDE
|
||
* Apache 2.0 license (not compatible with GPLv2)
|
||
* [Unity](http://www.throwtheswitch.org/unity) (CMock, Ceedling)
|
||
* Pros
|
||
* Pure C (Unity testing framework itself, not test runner)
|
||
* Support for different output formats (including XML for Jenkins)
|
||
* There are some (rather easy) hints how to use this from an IDE (e.g. Eclipse)
|
||
* MIT license
|
||
* Cons
|
||
* Test runner (Ceedling) is not written in C - uses Ruby
|
||
* Mocking/Exception handling functionalities are actually separate tools
|
||
* No automatic test registration
|
||
* Not too popular
|
||
|
||
### Summary & framework proposal
|
||
After research, we propose using the Cmocka unit test framework. Cmocka fulfills
|
||
all stated evaluation criteria. It is rather easy to use, doesn’t have extra
|
||
dependencies, written fully in C, allows for tests fixtures and some popular
|
||
open source projects already are using it. Cmocka also includes support for
|
||
mocks.
|
||
|
||
Cmocka's limitations, such as the lack of automatic test registration, are
|
||
considered minor issues that will require only minimal additional work from a
|
||
developer. At the same time, it may be worth to propose improvement to Cmocka
|
||
community or simply apply some extra wrapper with demanded functionality.
|
||
|
||
## Implementation
|
||
|
||
### Framework as a submodule or external package
|
||
Unit test frameworks may be either compiled from source (from a git submodule
|
||
under 3rdparty/) or pre-compiled as a package. The second option seems to be
|
||
easier to maintain, while at the same time may bring some unwanted consequences
|
||
(different version across distributions, frequent changes in API). It makes sense
|
||
to initially experiment with packages and check how it works. If this will
|
||
cause any issues, then it is always possible to switch to submodule approach.
|
||
|
||
### Integration with build system
|
||
To get the most out of unit testing framework, it should be integrated with
|
||
Jenkins automation server. Verification of all unit tests for new changes may
|
||
improve code reliability to some extent.
|
||
|
||
### Build configuration (Kconfig)
|
||
While building unit under test object file, it is necessary to apply some
|
||
configuration (config) just like when building usual firmware. For simplicity,
|
||
there will be one default tests .config `qemu_x86_i440fx` for all unit tests. At
|
||
the same time, some tests may require running with different values of particular
|
||
config. This should be handled by adding extra header, included after config.h.
|
||
This header will comprise #undef of old CONFIG values and #define of the
|
||
required value. When unit testing will be integrated with Jenkins, it may be
|
||
preferred to use every available config for periodic builds.
|
||
|
||
### Directory structure
|
||
Tests should be kept separate from the code, while at the same time it must be
|
||
easy to match code with test harness.
|
||
|
||
We create new directory for test files ($(toplevel)/tests/) and mimic the
|
||
structure of src/ directory.
|
||
|
||
Test object files (test harness, unit under tests and any additional executables
|
||
are stored under build/tests/<test_name> directory.
|
||
|
||
Below example shows how directory structure is organized for the two test cases:
|
||
tests/lib/string-test and tests/device/i2c-test:
|
||
|
||
```bash
|
||
├── src
|
||
│ ├── lib
|
||
│ │ ├── string.c <- unit under test
|
||
│ │
|
||
│ ├── device
|
||
│ ├── i2c.c
|
||
│
|
||
├── tests
|
||
│ ├── include
|
||
│ │ ├── mocks <- mock headers, which replace original headers
|
||
│ │
|
||
│ ├── Makefile.inc <- top Makefile for unit tests subsystem
|
||
│ ├── lib
|
||
│ │ ├── Makefile.inc
|
||
│ │ ├── string-test.c <- test code for src/lib/string.c
|
||
│ │ │
|
||
│ ├── device
|
||
│ │ ├── Makefile.inc
|
||
│ ├── i2c-test.c
|
||
│
|
||
├── build
|
||
│ ├── tests <-all test-related executables
|
||
├── config.h <- default config used for tests builds
|
||
├── lib
|
||
│ ├── string-test <- all string-test executables
|
||
│ │ ├── run <- final test binary
|
||
│ │ ├── tests <- all test harness executables
|
||
│ │ ├── lib
|
||
│ │ ├── string-test.o <-test harness executable
|
||
│ │ ├── src <- unit under test and other src executables
|
||
│ │ ├── lib
|
||
│ │ ├── string.o <- unit under test executable
|
||
├── device
|
||
├── i2c-test
|
||
├── run
|
||
├── tests
|
||
│ ├── device
|
||
│ ├── i2c-test.o
|
||
├── src
|
||
├── device
|
||
├── i2c.o
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
### Writing new tests
|
||
Our tutorial series has [detailed guidelines](../tutorial/part3.md) for writing
|
||
unit tests.
|