| Message ID | 85b6b8a9-ee5f-42ab-bcbc-49976b30ef33@web.de (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | unit-tests: add and use TEST_RUN to simplify tests | expand |
On 2024.06.29 17:33, René Scharfe wrote: > The macro TEST only allows defining a test that consists of a single > expression. This requires wrapping tests made up of one or more > statements in a function, which is a small, but avoidable hurdle. This > series provides a new macro, TEST_RUN, that provides a way to define > tests without requiring to declare a function. > > t0080: move expected output to a file > unit-tests: add TEST_RUN > t-ctype: use TEST_RUN > t-reftable-basics: use TEST_RUN > t-strvec: use TEST_RUN > t-strbuf: use TEST_RUN > > t/helper/test-example-tap.c | 33 +++ > t/t0080-unit-test-output.sh | 48 +---- > t/t0080/expect | 76 +++++++ > t/unit-tests/t-ctype.c | 4 +- > t/unit-tests/t-reftable-basics.c | 228 +++++++++----------- > t/unit-tests/t-strbuf.c | 79 +++---- > t/unit-tests/t-strvec.c | 356 ++++++++++++++----------------- > t/unit-tests/test-lib.c | 42 +++- > t/unit-tests/test-lib.h | 8 + > 9 files changed, 462 insertions(+), 412 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 t/t0080/expect > > -- > 2.45.2 One small nitpick on patch #3 and a question on #6, but basically this series looks good to me. I'll be away from email for the rest of the week, so I'll go ahead and sign off: Reviewed-by: Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com>
René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de> writes: > The macro TEST only allows defining a test that consists of a single > expression. This requires wrapping tests made up of one or more > statements in a function, which is a small, but avoidable hurdle. This > series provides a new macro, TEST_RUN, that provides a way to define > tests without requiring to declare a function. > > t0080: move expected output to a file > unit-tests: add TEST_RUN > t-ctype: use TEST_RUN > t-reftable-basics: use TEST_RUN > t-strvec: use TEST_RUN > t-strbuf: use TEST_RUN > > t/helper/test-example-tap.c | 33 +++ > t/t0080-unit-test-output.sh | 48 +---- > t/t0080/expect | 76 +++++++ > t/unit-tests/t-ctype.c | 4 +- > t/unit-tests/t-reftable-basics.c | 228 +++++++++----------- > t/unit-tests/t-strbuf.c | 79 +++---- > t/unit-tests/t-strvec.c | 356 ++++++++++++++----------------- > t/unit-tests/test-lib.c | 42 +++- > t/unit-tests/test-lib.h | 8 + > 9 files changed, 462 insertions(+), 412 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 t/t0080/expect So, looking back the discussion list on https://lore.kernel.org/git/85b6b8a9-ee5f-42ab-bcbc-49976b30ef33@web.de/ any loose ends still need to be addressed? I didn't spot any myself, so I am willing to merge it to 'next' soonish, but please stop me if there were something I missed. Thanks.
On 10/07/2024 23:13, Junio C Hamano wrote: > René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de> writes: > > So, looking back the discussion list on > > https://lore.kernel.org/git/85b6b8a9-ee5f-42ab-bcbc-49976b30ef33@web.de/ > > any loose ends still need to be addressed? I didn't spot any > myself, so I am willing to merge it to 'next' soonish, but please > stop me if there were something I missed. I thought René was planning a re-roll to avoid using xstrfmt() in Patch 2 c.f <97390954-49bc-48c4-bab1-95be10717aca@web.de>. Also I'm not sure we've reached a conclusion on whether to include the "if" in the macro or require the user to write "if(TEST_RUN(...))". My impression is that there is a consensus building around having the macro include the "if" but we haven't decided what to call it c.f. <62d221cc-532a-4a6d-8e96-b5a246ddeb1b@web.de> Best Wishes Phillip
Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com> writes: > On 10/07/2024 23:13, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de> writes: >> >> So, looking back the discussion list on >> https://lore.kernel.org/git/85b6b8a9-ee5f-42ab-bcbc-49976b30ef33@web.de/ >> any loose ends still need to be addressed? I didn't spot any >> myself, so I am willing to merge it to 'next' soonish, but please >> stop me if there were something I missed. > > I thought René was planning a re-roll to avoid using xstrfmt() in > Patch 2 c.f <97390954-49bc-48c4-bab1-95be10717aca@web.de>. Also I'm > not sure we've reached a conclusion on whether to include the "if" in > the macro or require the user to write "if(TEST_RUN(...))". My > impression is that there is a consensus building around having the > macro include the "if" but we haven't decided what to call it > c.f. <62d221cc-532a-4a6d-8e96-b5a246ddeb1b@web.de> > > Best Wishes Thanks. Very much appreciated.
Am 11.07.24 um 12:05 schrieb Phillip Wood: > On 10/07/2024 23:13, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de> writes: >> >> So, looking back the discussion list on >> >> https://lore.kernel.org/git/85b6b8a9-ee5f-42ab-bcbc-49976b30ef33@web.de/ >> >> any loose ends still need to be addressed? I didn't spot any >> myself, so I am willing to merge it to 'next' soonish, but please >> stop me if there were something I missed. > > I thought René was planning a re-roll to avoid using xstrfmt() in > Patch 2 c.f <97390954-49bc-48c4-bab1-95be10717aca@web.de>. Also I'm > not sure we've reached a conclusion on whether to include the "if" in > the macro or require the user to write "if(TEST_RUN(...))". My > impression is that there is a consensus building around having the > macro include the "if" but we haven't decided what to call it c.f. > <62d221cc-532a-4a6d-8e96-b5a246ddeb1b@web.de> Right, thanks, and I'm back now from a surprisingly exhausting business trip. Will send v3 soonish. René