Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] unit-tests: add for_test

[Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1565 bytes --]

On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 07:41:19PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Kyle Lippincott <spectral@google.com> writes:
> 
> >> > Maybe it's because I'm coming from a C++ environment at
> >> > $JOB that's using Google's gunit and gmock frameworks, where every
> >> > test is in its own function and we usually don't even write the main
> >> > function ourselves, but I have a preference for the separate
> >> > functions.
> >>
> >> If we do not have to write the main at all, then it would make the
> >> separate function that implements a single test a lot more palatable,
> >> and we do not even have to implement and call TEST() macro ;-).
> > ...
> > I tried to think of a way to do
> > this, and they all involved some other system coming along and
> > identifying the tests and code-generating a main function, which also
> > seems like too much magic to me.
> 
> I thought that automatically generating the boilerplates from the
> visible list of test functions and piecing them together with a
> synthetic main was what was brought up as how libgit2 project does
> this?  It does not sound all that involved and I do not find it a
> rocket science.

As I said when mentioning how libgit2 does it, I'd be happy to present a
working prototype for this if others think it was potentially useful.
Until now I didn't hear any positive feedback thoguh, you're the first
one saying that this might be something that is worth doing.

I just want to avoid wasting time on something that has no chance of
landing in the first place.

Patrick

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]