Re: [PATCH v8 0/3] Add unit test framework and project plan

[Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 12:22 AM Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com> wrote:
>
> In our current testing environment, we spend a significant amount of
> effort crafting end-to-end tests for error conditions that could easily
> be captured by unit tests (or we simply forgo some hard-to-setup and
> rare error conditions). Unit tests additionally provide stability to the
> codebase and can simplify debugging through isolation. Turning parts of
> Git into libraries[1] gives us the ability to run unit tests on the
> libraries and to write unit tests in C. Writing unit tests in pure C,
> rather than with our current shell/test-tool helper setup, simplifies
> test setup, simplifies passing data around (no shell-isms required), and
> reduces testing runtime by not spawning a separate process for every
> test invocation.
>
> This series begins with a project document covering our goals for adding
> unit tests and a discussion of alternative frameworks considered, as
> well as the features used to evaluate them. A rendered preview of this
> doc can be found at [2]. It also adds Phillip Wood's TAP implemenation
> (with some slightly re-worked Makefile rules) and a sample strbuf unit
> test. Finally, we modify the configs for GitHub and Cirrus CI to run the
> unit tests. Sample runs showing successful CI runs can be found at [3],
> [4], and [5].

I took a look at this version and I like it very much. I left a few
comments. My only real wish would be to use something like "actual"
and "expected" instead of "left" and "right" in case of test failure
and perhaps in the argument names of functions and macros. Not sure it
is easy to do in the same way as in the shell framework though.

Thanks!