On 06/03/2024 18:16, René Scharfe wrote:
Sorry for the delay I somehow missed your reply
Hello Phillip,
Am 04.03.24 um 10:51 schrieb Phillip Wood:
On 03/03/2024 10:13, René Scharfe wrote:
TEST_CTYPE_FUNC defines a function for testing a character classifier,
TEST_CHAR_CLASS calls it, causing the class name to be mentioned twice.
Avoid the need to define a class-specific function by letting
TEST_CHAR_CLASS do all the work. This is done by using the internal
functions test__run_begin() and test__run_end(), but they do exist to be
used in test macros after all.
Those internal functions exist to implement the TEST() macro, they
are not really intended for use outside that (which is why they are
marked as private in the header file). If we ever want to update the
implementation of TEST() it will be a lot harder if we're using the
internal implementation directly in test files. Unit tests should be
wrapping TEST() if it is appropriate but not the internal
implementation directly.
forcing tests to be expressions and not allow them to use statements is
an unusual requirement.
I don't think it is that unusual to require tests to be implemented as
functions which more or less amounts to the same thing.
I don't see how the added friction would make
tests any better. It just requires more boilerplate code and annoying
repetition. What kind of changes do you envision that would be
hindered by allowing statements?
I'm worried about bugs being introduced by the internal functions being
used incorrectly - it is not a user friendly API because it is designed
around the limitations of implementing TEST(), not for general
consumption. The unit test framework is very new so I don't think we can
be sure that we wont need to change it and that will be more difficult
if unit tests do not use TEST(). Maybe one of the changes we need is a
better way of allowing statements?
Ideally we wouldn't need TEST_CTYPE_FUNC as there would only be a
single function that was passed a ctype predicate, an input array and
an array of expected results. Unfortunately I don't think that is
possible due the the way the ctype predicates are implemented. Having
separate macros to define the test function and to run the test is
annoying but I don't think it is really worth exposing the internal
implementation just to avoid it.
The classifiers are currently implemented as macros. We could turn them
into inline functions and would then be able to pass them to a test
function. Improving testability is a good idea, but also somehow feels
like the tail wagging the dog. It would be easy, though, I think. And
less gross than:
Making them functions would allow them to be passed as function
arguments in our code as well, though I don't know if we have much use
for that. I certainly agree it would be better than the alternative below.
Best Wishes
Phillip
Alternatively we could unroll the loop to provide a very long expression
that tests all 256 characters and EOF and hand that to TEST, but that
seems awkward and hard to read.
... which would yield unsightly test macros and huge test binaries. But
it would certainly be possible, and keep the definitions of the actual
tests clean.
René
