On 2023.10.27 22:15, Christian Couder wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 12:22 AM Josh Steadmon <steadmon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > This patch contains an implementation for writing unit tests with TAP
> > output. Each test is a function that contains one or more checks. The
> > test is run with the TEST() macro and if any of the checks fail then the
> > test will fail. A complete program that tests STRBUF_INIT would look
> > like
> >
> > #include "test-lib.h"
> > #include "strbuf.h"
> >
> > static void t_static_init(void)
> > {
> > struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;
> >
> > check_uint(buf.len, ==, 0);
> > check_uint(buf.alloc, ==, 0);
> > check_char(buf.buf[0], ==, '\0');
> > }
> >
> > int main(void)
> > {
> > TEST(t_static_init(), "static initialization works);
> >
> > return test_done();
> > }
> >
> > The output of this program would be
> >
> > ok 1 - static initialization works
> > 1..1
> >
> > If any of the checks in a test fail then they print a diagnostic message
> > to aid debugging and the test will be reported as failing. For example a
> > failing integer check would look like
> >
> > # check "x >= 3" failed at my-test.c:102
>
> I wonder if it would be a bit better to say that the test was an
> integer test for example with "check_int(x >= 3) failed ..."
>
> > # left: 2
> > # right: 3
>
> I like "expected" and "actual" better than "left" and "right", not
> sure how it's possible to have that in a way consistent with the shell
> tests though.
I also prefer expected/actual, but I don't think it's possible where we
accept arbitrary operators, and I don't want to plumb a flag through to
specify whether to display left/right vs expected/actual.
> > not ok 1 - x is greater than or equal to three
> >
> > There are a number of check functions implemented so far. check() checks
> > a boolean condition, check_int(), check_uint() and check_char() take two
> > values to compare and a comparison operator. check_str() will check if
> > two strings are equal. Custom checks are simple to implement as shown in
> > the comments above test_assert() in test-lib.h.
>
> Yeah, nice.
>
> > Tests can be skipped with test_skip() which can be supplied with a
> > reason for skipping which it will print. Tests can print diagnostic
> > messages with test_msg(). Checks that are known to fail can be wrapped
> > in TEST_TODO().
>
> Maybe TEST_TOFIX() would be a bit more clear, but "TODO" is something
> that is more likely to be searched for than "TOFIX", so Ok.
>
> > There are a couple of example test programs included in this
> > patch. t-basic.c implements some self-tests and demonstrates the
> > diagnostic output for failing test. The output of this program is
> > checked by t0080-unit-test-output.sh. t-strbuf.c shows some example
> > unit tests for strbuf.c
> >
> > The unit tests will be built as part of the default "make all" target,
> > to avoid bitrot. If you wish to build just the unit tests, you can run
> > "make build-unit-tests". To run the tests, you can use "make unit-tests"
> > or run the test binaries directly, as in "./t/unit-tests/bin/t-strbuf".
>
> Nice!
>
> > +unit-tests-prove:
> > + @echo "*** prove - unit tests ***"; $(PROVE) $(GIT_PROVE_OPTS) $(UNIT_TESTS)
>
> Nice, but DEFAULT_TEST_TARGET=prove isn't used. So not sure how
> important or relevant the 'prove' related sections are in the
> Documentation/technical/unit-tests.txt file introduced by the previous
> patch.
The "unit-tests" target runs DEFAULT_UNIT_TEST_TARGET, which can be
overridden to "unit-tests-prove".
> > +int test_assert(const char *location, const char *check, int ok)
> > +{
> > + assert(ctx.running);
> > +
> > + if (ctx.result == RESULT_SKIP) {
> > + test_msg("skipping check '%s' at %s", check, location);
> > + return 1;
> > + } else if (!ctx.todo) {
>
> I think it would be a bit clearer without the "else" above and with
> the "if (!ctx.todo) {" starting on a new line.
Fixed in v9.
> > + if (ok) {
> > + test_pass();
> > + } else {
> > + test_msg("check \"%s\" failed at %s", check, location);
> > + test_fail();
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + return !!ok;
> > +}
>
> Otherwise it looks good to me.
Thanks for the review!
