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

From: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Date: Jul 23, 2024, 13:00 UTC
Message-ID: <Zp-pVsWeTCbfcquh@tanuki>
In-Reply-To: <0af06e8e-e1d7-4cf6-b968-5dad5f4fef2e@web.de>

On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 02:37:35PM +0200, René Scharfe wrote:

Show 14 quoted lines

> Am 23.07.24 um 11:53 schrieb Patrick Steinhardt:
> > 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.
> 
> In which ways can for_test break?

I was mostly referring to the potential for empty-by-accident test bodies that were mentioned in other parts of this thread.

Patrick