| Message ID | 8bd5b3e2b2989a30b597da2103eb8d9699cf3d7f.1725349234.git.ps@pks.im (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Introduce clar testing framework | expand |
Hi Patrick On 03/09/2024 10:15, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > The test driver in "unit-test.c" is responsible for setting up our unit > tests and eventually running them. As such, it is also responsible for > parsing the command line arguments. > > The clar unit testing framework provides function `clar_test()` that > parses command line arguments and then executes the tests for us. In > theory that would already be sufficient. We have the special requirement > to always generate TAP-formatted output though, so we'd have to always > pass the "-t" argument to clar. Furthermore, some of the options exposed > by clar are ineffective when "-t" is used, but they would still be shown > when the user passes the "-h" parameter to have the clar show its usage. > > Implement our own option handling instead of using the one provided by > clar, which gives us greater flexibility in how exactly we set things > up. That makes sense > We would ideally not use any "normal" code of ours for this such that > the unit testing framework doesn't depend on it working correctly. But > it is somewhat dubious whether we really want to reimplement all of the > option parsing. So for now, let's be pragmatic and reuse it until we > find a good reason in the future why we'd really want to avoid it. I think that's fine for now. Using parse_options() gives a much nicer user experience than clar_test() as it supports long options and has more flexible support for option arguments. I'd expect the code that implements "struct string_list" and "struct strvec" to be pretty stable so its probably safe to rely on those. Given there's only a couple of options it wouldn't be too bad to implement the parsing ourselves if we have to in the future. We might need to do that to support the libification work as I suspect we wont want to link tests for other libraries against libgit.a. > Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> > --- > t/unit-tests/unit-test.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/t/unit-tests/unit-test.c b/t/unit-tests/unit-test.c > index 3d12cde6dae..96fa64de71d 100644 > --- a/t/unit-tests/unit-test.c > +++ b/t/unit-tests/unit-test.c > @@ -1,6 +1,45 @@ > #include "unit-test.h" > +#include "parse-options.h" > +#include "string-list.h" > +#include "strvec.h" > > -int cmd_main(int argc UNUSED, const char **argv UNUSED) > +static const char * const unit_test_usage[] = { > + N_("unit-test [<options>]"), > + NULL, > +}; > + > +int cmd_main(int argc, const char **argv) > { > - return 0; > + struct string_list run_args = STRING_LIST_INIT_NODUP; > + struct string_list exclude_args = STRING_LIST_INIT_NODUP; > + int immediate = 0; > + struct option options[] = { > + OPT_BOOL('i', "--immediate", &immediate, > + N_("immediately exit upon the first failed test")), This is unused. If we want to to behave like the "--immediate" option of our integration tests that's hard to implement by wrapping clar_test() which requires "-i<suite>". The simplest thing would be to just drop it for now. Otherwise as the most likely use for "-i" is manually testing some tests in a suite we could require "--run" with "-i". Then we would have one or more suite names which we can append to "-i" when passing it to clar_test(). Alternatively we could include "clar.suite" and wade through all the test suite names ourselves to construct a suitable list of "-i" options to pass to clar_test() but that would probably mean we have to parse the excludes as well which makes it all a bit of a faff. > + OPT_STRING_LIST('r', "run", &run_args, N_("name"), > + N_("run only test suite or individual test <name>")), It's nice that this option name now matches our integration tests. It would be helpful to show the syntax for "name" (I think it expects <suite>[::<test>]) but I failed to come up with a concise description to add to the help here. Best Wishes Phillip > + OPT_STRING_LIST('x', "exclude", &exclude_args, N_("name"), > + N_("exclude test suite <name>")), > + OPT_END(), > + }; > + struct strvec args = STRVEC_INIT; > + int ret; > + > + argc = parse_options(argc, argv, NULL, options, > + unit_test_usage, PARSE_OPT_KEEP_ARGV0); > + if (argc > 1) > + usagef(_("extra command line parameter '%s'"), argv[0]); > + > + strvec_push(&args, argv[0]); > + strvec_push(&args, "-t"); > + for (size_t i = 0; i < run_args.nr; i++) > + strvec_pushf(&args, "-s%s", run_args.items[i].string); > + for (size_t i = 0; i < exclude_args.nr; i++) > + strvec_pushf(&args, "-x%s", exclude_args.items[i].string); > + > + ret = clar_test(args.nr, (char **) args.v); > + > + string_list_clear(&run_args, 0); > + strvec_clear(&args); > + return ret; > }
On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 02:35:20PM +0100, Phillip Wood wrote: > Hi Patrick > > On 03/09/2024 10:15, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > > The test driver in "unit-test.c" is responsible for setting up our unit > > tests and eventually running them. As such, it is also responsible for > > parsing the command line arguments. > > > > The clar unit testing framework provides function `clar_test()` that > > parses command line arguments and then executes the tests for us. In > > theory that would already be sufficient. We have the special requirement > > to always generate TAP-formatted output though, so we'd have to always > > pass the "-t" argument to clar. Furthermore, some of the options exposed > > by clar are ineffective when "-t" is used, but they would still be shown > > when the user passes the "-h" parameter to have the clar show its usage. > > > > Implement our own option handling instead of using the one provided by > > clar, which gives us greater flexibility in how exactly we set things > > up. > > That makes sense > > > We would ideally not use any "normal" code of ours for this such that > > the unit testing framework doesn't depend on it working correctly. But > > it is somewhat dubious whether we really want to reimplement all of the > > option parsing. So for now, let's be pragmatic and reuse it until we > > find a good reason in the future why we'd really want to avoid it. > > I think that's fine for now. Using parse_options() gives a much nicer user > experience than clar_test() as it supports long options and has more > flexible support for option arguments. I'd expect the code that implements > "struct string_list" and "struct strvec" to be pretty stable so its probably > safe to rely on those. > > Given there's only a couple of options it wouldn't be too bad to implement > the parsing ourselves if we have to in the future. We might need to do that > to support the libification work as I suspect we wont want to link tests for > other libraries against libgit.a. > > > Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> > > --- > > t/unit-tests/unit-test.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > > 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/t/unit-tests/unit-test.c b/t/unit-tests/unit-test.c > > index 3d12cde6dae..96fa64de71d 100644 > > --- a/t/unit-tests/unit-test.c > > +++ b/t/unit-tests/unit-test.c > > @@ -1,6 +1,45 @@ > > #include "unit-test.h" > > +#include "parse-options.h" > > +#include "string-list.h" > > +#include "strvec.h" > > -int cmd_main(int argc UNUSED, const char **argv UNUSED) > > +static const char * const unit_test_usage[] = { > > + N_("unit-test [<options>]"), > > + NULL, > > +}; > > + > > +int cmd_main(int argc, const char **argv) > > { > > - return 0; > > + struct string_list run_args = STRING_LIST_INIT_NODUP; > > + struct string_list exclude_args = STRING_LIST_INIT_NODUP; > > + int immediate = 0; > > + struct option options[] = { > > + OPT_BOOL('i', "--immediate", &immediate, > > + N_("immediately exit upon the first failed test")), > > This is unused. If we want to to behave like the "--immediate" option of our > integration tests that's hard to implement by wrapping clar_test() which > requires "-i<suite>". The simplest thing would be to just drop it for now. > Otherwise as the most likely use for "-i" is manually testing some tests in > a suite we could require "--run" with "-i". Then we would have one or more > suite names which we can append to "-i" when passing it to clar_test(). > Alternatively we could include "clar.suite" and wade through all the test > suite names ourselves to construct a suitable list of "-i" options to pass > to clar_test() but that would probably mean we have to parse the excludes as > well which makes it all a bit of a faff. Oh, that's a plain oversight on my side. It is easy to wire up given that the clar already supports it via "-Q". Also made me notice that I wrote "--immediate" instead of "immediate". > > + OPT_STRING_LIST('r', "run", &run_args, N_("name"), > > + N_("run only test suite or individual test <name>")), > > It's nice that this option name now matches our integration tests. It would > be helpful to show the syntax for "name" (I think it expects > <suite>[::<test>]) but I failed to come up with a concise description to add > to the help here. Isn't `<suite[::test]>` concise enough? I certainly like it. Patrick
Hi Patrick On 04/09/2024 15:12, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 02:35:20PM +0100, Phillip Wood wrote: > Oh, that's a plain oversight on my side. It is easy to wire up given > that the clar already supports it via "-Q". Also made me notice that I > wrote "--immediate" instead of "immediate". That's handy, I'd missed clar's "-Q" option. >>> + OPT_STRING_LIST('r', "run", &run_args, N_("name"), >>> + N_("run only test suite or individual test <name>")), >> >> It's nice that this option name now matches our integration tests. It would >> be helpful to show the syntax for "name" (I think it expects >> <suite>[::<test>]) but I failed to come up with a concise description to add >> to the help here. > > Isn't `<suite[::test]>` concise enough? I certainly like it. Sounds good Phillip > Patrick
diff --git a/t/unit-tests/unit-test.c b/t/unit-tests/unit-test.c index 3d12cde6dae..96fa64de71d 100644 --- a/t/unit-tests/unit-test.c +++ b/t/unit-tests/unit-test.c @@ -1,6 +1,45 @@ #include "unit-test.h" +#include "parse-options.h" +#include "string-list.h" +#include "strvec.h" -int cmd_main(int argc UNUSED, const char **argv UNUSED) +static const char * const unit_test_usage[] = { + N_("unit-test [<options>]"), + NULL, +}; + +int cmd_main(int argc, const char **argv) { - return 0; + struct string_list run_args = STRING_LIST_INIT_NODUP; + struct string_list exclude_args = STRING_LIST_INIT_NODUP; + int immediate = 0; + struct option options[] = { + OPT_BOOL('i', "--immediate", &immediate, + N_("immediately exit upon the first failed test")), + OPT_STRING_LIST('r', "run", &run_args, N_("name"), + N_("run only test suite or individual test <name>")), + OPT_STRING_LIST('x', "exclude", &exclude_args, N_("name"), + N_("exclude test suite <name>")), + OPT_END(), + }; + struct strvec args = STRVEC_INIT; + int ret; + + argc = parse_options(argc, argv, NULL, options, + unit_test_usage, PARSE_OPT_KEEP_ARGV0); + if (argc > 1) + usagef(_("extra command line parameter '%s'"), argv[0]); + + strvec_push(&args, argv[0]); + strvec_push(&args, "-t"); + for (size_t i = 0; i < run_args.nr; i++) + strvec_pushf(&args, "-s%s", run_args.items[i].string); + for (size_t i = 0; i < exclude_args.nr; i++) + strvec_pushf(&args, "-x%s", exclude_args.items[i].string); + + ret = clar_test(args.nr, (char **) args.v); + + string_list_clear(&run_args, 0); + strvec_clear(&args); + return ret; }
The test driver in "unit-test.c" is responsible for setting up our unit tests and eventually running them. As such, it is also responsible for parsing the command line arguments. The clar unit testing framework provides function `clar_test()` that parses command line arguments and then executes the tests for us. In theory that would already be sufficient. We have the special requirement to always generate TAP-formatted output though, so we'd have to always pass the "-t" argument to clar. Furthermore, some of the options exposed by clar are ineffective when "-t" is used, but they would still be shown when the user passes the "-h" parameter to have the clar show its usage. Implement our own option handling instead of using the one provided by clar, which gives us greater flexibility in how exactly we set things up. We would ideally not use any "normal" code of ours for this such that the unit testing framework doesn't depend on it working correctly. But it is somewhat dubious whether we really want to reimplement all of the option parsing. So for now, let's be pragmatic and reuse it until we find a good reason in the future why we'd really want to avoid it. Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> --- t/unit-tests/unit-test.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)