On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 05:47:04AM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote: > On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 5:15 AM Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> wrote:> > > Our unit testing framework is a homegrown solution. While it supports > > most of our needs, it is likely that the volume of unit tests will grow > > quite a bit in the future such that we can exercise low-level subsystems > > directly. This surfaces several shortcomings that the current solution > > has: > > > > - There is no way to run only one specific tests. While some of our > > unit tests wire this up manually, others don't. In general, it > > requires quite a bit of boilerplate to get this set up correctly. > > > > - Failures do not cause a test to stop execution directly. Instead, > > the test author needs to return manually whenever an assertion > > fails. This is rather verbose and is not done correctly in most of > > our unit tests. > > > > - Wiring up a new testcase requires both implementing the test > > function and calling it in the respective test suite's main > > function, which is creating code duplication. > > > > We can of course fix all of these issues ourselves, but that feels > > rather pointless when there are already so many unit testing frameworks > > out there that have those features. > > > > We line out some requirements for any unit testing framework in > > Perhaps you meant s/line out/outline/ ? > > (Not worth a reroll.) Hum. Yeah, this is German grammar leaking into English. Anyway, TIL what "to line out" means :) Thanks! Patrick
