Re: [PATCH] Port helper/test-ctype.c to unit-tests/t-ctype.c

["René Scharfe" <l.s.r@web.de>]

Am 28.12.23 um 00:48 schrieb Junio C Hamano:
> René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de> writes:
>
>>> Also it might not be a big issue here, but when the new unit test
>>> framework was proposed, I commented on the fact that "left" and
>>> "right" were perhaps a bit less explicit than "actual" and "expected".
>>
>> True.
>> ...
>> The added repetition is a bit grating.  With a bit of setup, loop
>> unrolling and stringification you can retain the property of only having
>> to mention the class name once.  Demo patch below.
>
> Nice.
>
> This (and your mempool thing) being one of the early efforts to
> adopt the unit-test framework outside the initial set of sample
> tests, it is understandable that we might find what framework offers
> is still lacking.  But at the same time, while the macro tricks
> demonstrated here are all amusing to read and admire, it feels a bit
> too much to expect that the test writers are willing to invent
> something like these every time they want to test.
>
> Being a relatively faithful conversion of the original ctype tests,
> with its thorough enumeration of test samples and expected output,
> is what makes this test program require these macro tricks, and it
> does not have much to do with the features (or lack thereof) of the
> framework, I guess.

*nod*

>
>> +struct ctype {
>> +	const char *name;
>> +	const char *expect;
>> +	int actual[256];
>> +};
>> +
>> +static void test_ctype(const struct ctype *class)
>> +{
>> +	for (int i = 0; i < 256; i++) {
>> +		int expect = is_in(class->expect, i);
>> +		int actual = class->actual[i];
>> +		int res = test_assert(TEST_LOCATION(), class->name,
>> +				      actual == expect);
>> +		if (!res)
>> +			test_msg("%s classifies char %d (0x%02x) wrongly",
>> +				 class->name, i, i);
>> +	}
>>  }
>
> Somehow, the "test_assert" does not seem to be adding much value
> here (i.e. we can do "res = (actual == expect)" there).  Is this
> because we want to be able to report success, too?
>
>     ... goes and looks at test_assert() ...
>
> Ah, is it because we want to be able to "skip" (which pretends that
> the assert() was satisified).  OK, but then the error reporting from
> it is redundant with our own test_msg().

True, the test_msg() emits the old message here, but it doesn't have to
report that the check failed anymore, because test_assert() already
covers that part.  It would only have to report the misclassified
character and perhaps the expected result.

René