Re: [PATCH 6/6] t-strbuf: use TEST_RUN

> Am 02.07.24 um 17:14 schrieb phillip.wood123@gmail.com:
>> Hi Josh and René
>>
>> On 01/07/2024 20:58, Josh Steadmon wrote:
>>> On 2024.06.29 17:47, René Scharfe wrote:
>>>
>>> I think this commit in particular shows how TEST_RUN() is more
>>> convenient than TEST(). (Although, arguably we shouldn't have allowed
>>> the setup() + callback situation to start with.)
>>
>> I think the counterargument to that is that using TEST_RUN() makes
>> the tests noisier and more error prone because each one has to be
>> wrapped in an if() statement and has more boiler plate initializing
>> and freeing the strbuf rather than getting that for free by calling
>> the test function via setup().
> 
> I guess these are two sides of the same coin.  Explicit initialization
> and cleanup is closer to what real strbuf users do, more idiomatic.
> Which helps to see what the tests are actually doing.
> 
> The wrapping if is less annoying than a wrapping function that I have
> to name and call.  The condition is just !ctx.skip_all, though, (for
> now at least) so we could do something like:
> 
>     #define TEST_START(...) if (!TEST_RUN(__VA_ARGS__)) return test_done()
> 
> ... and tests could look like that then:
> 
>     TEST_START("this and that");
>     check(this);
>     check(that);
> 
>     TEST_START("whatever");
>     check(whatever);
> 
> Perhaps a bit too much magic, though?