Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] unit-tests: add for_test

> On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 11:25:29AM +0200, René Scharfe wrote:
>> Am 23.07.24 um 08:36 schrieb Patrick Steinhardt:
>>> There is of course some magic involved with how we generate the file.
>>
>> It requires magic function names and generates code using a different
>> language, while for_test is a just single new control flow keyword,
>> like the dozen or so we already have.  So the magic employed by the
>> libgit2 system is both broader and deeper.
>
> It is broader, that's certainly true. But it feels more self-contained,
> less fragile and easier to read to me compared to macros.

>>> But I think that would be quite manageable, and ultimately all that the
>>> developer would need to care about is writing a `test_foo_something()`
>>> function. Everything else would be handled by our infra.
>>
>> With for_test all the developer has to do is write a test with a
>> description, no extra infrastructure beyond the existing unit test
>> framework needed.
>
> True, but it feels like it is an invitation for writing unidiomatic
> code to me. Unidiomatic in this context to me mostly means code that is
> not self-contained and thus cannot be run standalone.