Am 22.07.24 um 21:36 schrieb Junio C Hamano:
> Kyle Lippincott <spectral@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>>> + for_test ("for_test passing test")
>>> + check_int(1, ==, 1);
>>
>> I'm concerned that users will write this like:
>> + for_test ("for_test passing test");
>> + check_int(1, ==, 1);
>
> And that is exactly why we want the macro name to include C keyword
> for control structures.
>
>> And the issue won't be caught.
>
> You are right. Making an empty body somehow catchable by the
> compiler would be a vast improvement.
That would be nice, but I have no idea how to do that without compiler
changes. In the meantime the existing runtime checks will catch both
the empty test in the first line and the out-of-test check in the second
one and report them like this:
# BUG: test has no checks at t/helper/test-example-tap.c:75
not ok 1 - for_test passing test
Assertion failed: (ctx.running), function test_assert, file test-lib.c, line 267.
File name and line in the second one are not as helpful as they could
be. Here's a patch to improve that output.
--- >8 ---
Subject: [PATCH] unit-tests: show location of checks outside of tests
Checks outside of tests are caught at runtime and reported like this:
Assertion failed: (ctx.running), function test_assert, file test-lib.c, line 267.
The assert() call aborts the unit test and doesn't reveal the location
or even the type of the offending check, as test_assert() is called by
all of them.
Handle it like the opposite case, a test without any checks: Don't
abort, but report the location of the actual check, along with a message
explaining the situation. The output for example above becomes:
# BUG: check outside of test at t/helper/test-example-tap.c:75
... and the unit test program continues.
Signed-off-by: René Scharfe <l.s.r@xxxxxx>
---
t/unit-tests/test-lib.c | 6 +++++-
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/t/unit-tests/test-lib.c b/t/unit-tests/test-lib.c
index 3c513ce59a..9977c81739 100644
--- a/t/unit-tests/test-lib.c
+++ b/t/unit-tests/test-lib.c
@@ -264,7 +264,11 @@ static void test_todo(void)
int test_assert(const char *location, const char *check, int ok)
{
- assert(ctx.running);
+ if (!ctx.running) {
+ test_msg("BUG: check outside of test at %s",
+ make_relative(location));
+ return 0;
+ }
if (ctx.result == RESULT_SKIP) {
test_msg("skipping check '%s' at %s", check,
--
2.45.2
