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

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jul 22, 2024, 20:41 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqwmld9n2b.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <be282096-49af-4d83-b5f7-8b4f1b447edb@web.de>

René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de> writes:

Show 7 quoted lines

>>> And the issue won't be caught.
>>
>> You are right.  Making an empty body somehow catchable by the
>> compiler would be a vast improvement.
>
> That would be nice, but I have no idea how to do that without compiler
> changes.

Me neither. I was trying to nerd-snipe Kyle into coming up with a solution ;-)

Show 7 quoted lines

> In the meantime the existing runtime checks will catch both
> the empty test in the first line and the out-of-test check in the second
> one and report them like this:
>
>  # BUG: test has no checks at t/helper/test-example-tap.c:75
>  not ok 1 - for_test passing test
>  Assertion failed: (ctx.running), function test_assert, file test-lib.c, line 267.

Nice improvement, I would say.

Show 19 quoted lines

> diff --git a/t/unit-tests/test-lib.c b/t/unit-tests/test-lib.c
> index 3c513ce59a..9977c81739 100644
> --- a/t/unit-tests/test-lib.c
> +++ b/t/unit-tests/test-lib.c
> @@ -264,7 +264,11 @@ static void test_todo(void)
>
>  int test_assert(const char *location, const char *check, int ok)
>  {
> -	assert(ctx.running);
> +	if (!ctx.running) {
> +		test_msg("BUG: check outside of test at %s",
> +			 make_relative(location));
> +		return 0;
> +	}
>
>  	if (ctx.result == RESULT_SKIP) {
>  		test_msg("skipping check '%s' at %s", check,
> --
> 2.45.2