Re: [PATCH v6 00/13] Introduce clar testing framework

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Patrick

On 28/08/2024 15:03, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 02:18:49PM +0100, Phillip Wood wrote:
On 20/08/2024 15:02, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
Hi,

this is another version of my patch series that introduces the clar
testing framework for our C unit tests.

I've left some comments on the code, most of them are points I made in the
last round that received no response. My main concern is that the assertions
offered by clar are not as convinent as the check_* macros.

Did you have a look at my reply at <ZsSTOczuGhT5zwoV@tanuki>, where I
responded to these concerns?

Oh sorry I'd completely missed that mail (it came in while I was off line and I failed to notice it).

In summary: I'm aware that this is still a rough edge. I'd be happy to
follow up on this and improve usability of the assertions, but doing it
likely is a bit more involved, mostly because I want to upstream all
changes in this context. So I'd rather want to land a basic version
first, and then I'd iterate and improve asserts.

That sounds reasonable

What's the plan for converting our current tests if this gets merged? If we
were to add wrappers that provide check_int() etc. that would greatly
simplify the conversion. I think it would offer a more ergonomic api for
writing new tests than the verbose and non-typesafe cl_assert_equal_i() and
friends.

My plan would first be to let things cook for a bit while I sort out the
rough spots upstream. Once done and once we are sufficiently sure that
this is the direction to go I'm happy to do the conversion myself.

Whether we want to have wrappers... I dunno, I don't think the names are
all that bad. They have a clear namespace and say rather directly what
they are doing, which I value more than briefness (to a certain extent,
of course).

One could argue the check_* are namespaced by "check". I find writing unit tests in C is pretty tedious and having to type cl_assert_equal_? just adds to that.

The type safety is another topic though, and something I
will aim to address.

Thanks, it sounds like we're more or less on the same page

Best Wishes

Phillip

Thanks!

Patrick




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux