Hi Ævar
On 02/05/2023 17:34, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
On Thu, Apr 27 2023, Phillip Wood wrote:
Hi Calvin
On 27/04/2023 18:50, Calvin Wan wrote:
Introduces the C TAP harness from https://github.com/rra/c-tap-harness/
There is also more complete documentation at
https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/software/c-tap-harness/
I'm afraid this reply is rather briefer than I'd like but I'm short of
time and about to go off-list for a couple of weeks. My ideal unit
test library would
- print the file and line number of failed assertions
- allow the test plan to be omitted by calling test_done() at the end
of the test file as we do in our main test suite.
- support the TODO directive
- allow named tests (this maybe more trouble that it is worth as I
think it inevitably leads to more boilerplate code calling the named
tests)
Unfortunately this library doesn't seem to offer any of those
features. It does support a lazy test plan but uses atexit() so will
not detect if the test program exits before all the tests have run. I
think it would be useful to add some unit tests to our test suite and
maybe this library could form the basis of that but I think printing
the file and line number of failed assertions is pretty essential.
Other things aside, I prefer our explicit "test_done", but I don't see
why you think an atexit() isn't enough to catch incomplete tests.
For a C program you'd just do something like this (somewhat pseudocode,
I didn't check if it compiled etc):
static int done; /* read by atexit() handler */
void on_atexit(void)
{
if (!done)
BUG();
print_plan_line();
}
int main(void)
{
int ret;
setup_atexit(a_handler);
ret = do_tests();
done = 1;
return ret;
}
If I'm understanding you correctly you're concerned that if some user
code within do_test() calls exit() we won't return from "do_test()", but
we *would* call print_plan_line().
Exactly
That's a valid concern, we want to distinguish such "early return" from
cases where we run to completion, that's why we use "test_done" in the
shell code.
But in the C case I think just using something like the "done" variable
pattern above should cover that, without the need for an explicit
"test_done".
We could do that. My complaint is that the code being proposed does not
and so prints a valid plan if any code being tested calls exit()
Best Wishes
Phillip
