Re: RFC: GLib testing framework

On Nov 6, 2007, at 2:40 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:

On Nov 6, 2007 2:19 PM, Tim Janik <timj imendio com> wrote:
however if you want the value of 'foo' and 'bar' be printed out, instead of just the value of (foo > bar) which would be 0 or 1, then there are
no other means than using something simialr to:
  g_assert_cmpfloat (foo, >, bar);

Hmm, thats unfortunately true. Unless we want to go for something more

g_assert_with_message (foo > bar, "foo is not greateer than bar (%d >
%d)", foo, bar)

Or, of course, the less general, cryptic, i-can-never-remember-which- arg-is-which suite of specific symbols:

    g_assert_lt (foo, bar); /* foo less-than bar */
    g_assert_ge (foo, bar); /* foo greater-than or equal-to bar */
    g_assert_eq (foo, bar); /* foo equal to bar */
    g_assert_deq (foo, bar); /* "double equal", using an epsilon */
    g_assert_streq (foo, bar); /* "string equal" */

That's kinda icky, unfortunately.

When the test fails, the first two things you want to know are "which test?" and "what were the values?" Numbered tests, or tests which only say "failed", really don't help, because they send you first to the debugger or into your editor to add a printf(). Making it painless and automatic to express tests and get that functionality should be a high priority for the API design here. To that end i think Tim's proposed API is alright.

If the monkey could type one keystroke every nanosecond, the expected waiting time until the monkey types out Hamlet is so long that the estimated age of the universe is insignificant by comparison ... this is not a practical method for writing plays.
  -- Gian-Carlo Rota

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]