Am 04.03.24 um 11:00 schrieb Christian Couder: > And anyway it doesn't make sense to have meaningful messages as second > arguments to the TEST() macros if we always want to use a test harness > that just discards them. Either: > > - we decide that we will always use some test harness, and then we > might just want to remove that second argument and yeah we can have > thousands of tests output lines from a single binary, or > - we acknowledge that we don't always want to use a test harness, > and then we want a relatively short and meaningful output from a > single binary. Different situations require different levels of detail. If all checks pass, we just need that one bit of information. If some fail, we need as much helpful context as we can get. Success messages are interesting for someone who added a new test and as a progress indicator, but are useless otherwise (to me at least). Perhaps it would make sense to show ok message only after a delay if writing to a terminal, similar to what progress.c does? This would effectively silence them, since our current unit tests currently take only a fraction of a second to finish. René
