Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] Add C TAP harness
From: Phillip Wood <hidden>
Date: 2023-05-10 08:18:48
Hi Ævar On 02/05/2023 17:34, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
On Thu, Apr 27 2023, Phillip Wood 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 - print the file and line number of failed assertions - allow the test plan to be omitted by calling test_done() at the end of the test file as we do in our main test suite. - support the TODO directive - 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) Unfortunately this library doesn't seem to offer any of those features. It does support a lazy test plan but uses atexit() so will not detect if the test program exits before all the tests have run. I think it would be useful to add some unit tests to our test suite and maybe this library could form the basis of that but I think printing the file and line number of failed assertions is pretty essential.Other things aside, I prefer our explicit "test_done", but I don't see why you think an atexit() isn't enough to catch incomplete tests. For a C program you'd just do something like this (somewhat pseudocode, I didn't check if it compiled etc): static int done; /* read by atexit() handler */ void on_atexit(void) { if (!done) BUG(); print_plan_line(); } int main(void) { int ret; setup_atexit(a_handler); ret = do_tests(); done = 1; return ret; } If I'm understanding you correctly you're concerned that if some user code within do_test() calls exit() we won't return from "do_test()", but we *would* call print_plan_line().
Exactly
That's a valid concern, we want to distinguish such "early return" from cases where we run to completion, that's why we use "test_done" in the shell code. But in the C case I think just using something like the "done" variable pattern above should cover that, without the need for an explicit "test_done".
We could do that. My complaint is that the code being proposed does not and so prints a valid plan if any code being tested calls exit() Best Wishes Phillip