Am 02.07.24 um 17:14 schrieb phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx:
> Hi Josh and René
>
> On 01/07/2024 20:58, Josh Steadmon wrote:
>> On 2024.06.29 17:47, René Scharfe wrote:
>>
>> I think this commit in particular shows how TEST_RUN() is more
>> convenient than TEST(). (Although, arguably we shouldn't have allowed
>> the setup() + callback situation to start with.)
>
> I think the counterargument to that is that using TEST_RUN() makes
> the tests noisier and more error prone because each one has to be
> wrapped in an if() statement and has more boiler plate initializing
> and freeing the strbuf rather than getting that for free by calling
> the test function via setup().
I guess these are two sides of the same coin. Explicit initialization
and cleanup is closer to what real strbuf users do, more idiomatic.
Which helps to see what the tests are actually doing.
The wrapping if is less annoying than a wrapping function that I have
to name and call. The condition is just !ctx.skip_all, though, (for
now at least) so we could do something like:
#define TEST_START(...) if (!TEST_RUN(__VA_ARGS__)) return test_done()
... and tests could look like that then:
TEST_START("this and that");
check(this);
check(that);
TEST_START("whatever");
check(whatever);
Perhaps a bit too much magic, though?
René
