On Mon, Sep 09, 2024 at 11:17:43AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes: > > > +UNIT_TESTS_PROG = $(UNIT_TEST_BIN)/unit-tests$(X) > > +UNIT_TESTS_OBJS = $(patsubst %,$(UNIT_TEST_DIR)/%.o,$(UNIT_TESTS_SUITES)) > > +UNIT_TESTS_OBJS += $(UNIT_TEST_DIR)/clar/clar.o > > +UNIT_TESTS_OBJS += $(UNIT_TEST_DIR)/unit-test.o > > + > > UNIT_TEST_PROGRAMS += t-ctype > > UNIT_TEST_PROGRAMS += t-example-decorate > > UNIT_TEST_PROGRAMS += t-hash > > @@ -2714,6 +2721,7 @@ OBJECTS += $(XDIFF_OBJS) > > OBJECTS += $(FUZZ_OBJS) > > OBJECTS += $(REFTABLE_OBJS) $(REFTABLE_TEST_OBJS) > > OBJECTS += $(UNIT_TEST_OBJS) > > +OBJECTS += $(UNIT_TESTS_OBJS) > > What is the longer term direction we envision? Do we aim to retire > the UNIT_TEST_* and end up with only the clar based tests? Yeah, that's my plan. I first want to let the new clar-based tests cook a bit to shake out any issues with it, and address issues with clar that were raised during review upstream. But once that's done and we see that it works alright for our purpose I'd aim to convert all test suites to use the clar such that we ultimately end up with a single unit testing framework, only. > At least until that happens, can we have "UNIT_TESTS" -> "CLAR_TEST" > or something that makes it less confusing? Every time I see merge > conflicts around this area in the Makefile, I get puzzled and wonder > which one is which. These are indeed quite similarly named, so I see where the confusion comes from. I'll send a patch in a bit to rename them. Patrick
