Calvin Wan wrote:

On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 1:15 PM Phillip Wood [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi Calvin

On 27/04/2023 18:50, Calvin Wan wrote:

quoted

Introduces the C TAP harness from https://github.com/rra/c-tap-harness/

There is also more complete documentation at
https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/software/c-tap-harness/

I'm afraid this reply is rather briefer than I'd like but I'm short of
time and about to go off-list for a couple of weeks. My ideal unit test
library would

quoted

  - allow named tests (this maybe more trouble that it is worth as I
    think it inevitably leads to more boilerplate code calling the named
    tests)

I'm not quite sure what you're referring to with "named tests". Could
you clarify (possibly with an example)?

Many test frameworks have a way of specifying a name for a test case, for
example in JavaScript's QUnit:

  test('basic test case', t => {
    t.is('actual', 'expected');
  });

In this case "basic test case" is the name of the test case.

In git's testing framework:

  test_expect_success 'basic test case' '
    echo actual > actual &&
    echo expected > expected &&
    test_cmp actual expected
  '

When running this test case the TAP output would be:

  ok 1 - basic test case

Other testing frameworks report on a per-assertion basis, for example Perl's
Test::More:

  is('actual', 'expected', 'assertion check');

These are more like named assertions rather than named test cases.

The example of what you proposed shows:

  ok(unit_test(), "unit test runs successfully");

Which is similar to Test::More, so it seems it runs on a concept of assertions
rather than test cases.

That's what I presume Phillip meant.

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras