On 02/07/2024 21:55, René Scharfe wrote:
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?
I think so. It's an interesting idea, but at some point someone will
probably want to be able to run a subset of the tests in a file like
"--run" does for the integration tests so I don't think we want to
assume we can skip all the tests just because any particular test should
be skipped.
Best Wishes
Phillip
René
