MinUnit – A minimal unit testing framework for C (2002)
1–10 of 56 posts
Re: MinUnit – A minimal unit testing framework for C (2002)
#2So, the revelation is that a unit test is an if statement, and if you wrap that into a macro you can call it a framework.
Re: MinUnit – A minimal unit testing framework for C (2002)
#3So, the revelation is that a unit test is an if statement, and if you wrap that into a macro you can call it a framework.
For many novice engineers this is a huge revelation.
Re: MinUnit – A minimal unit testing framework for C (2002)
#4Whats up with the do/while loops? Does that just make the return syntactically valid?
Apologies, its been a while since I've touched C/C++
Re: MinUnit – A minimal unit testing framework for C (2002)
#5Whats up with the do/while loops? Does that just make the return syntactically valid? Apologies, its been a while since I've touched C/C++
Re: MinUnit – A minimal unit testing framework for C (2002)
#6Whats up with the do/while loops? Does that just make the return syntactically valid? Apologies, its been a while since I've touched C/C++
This is dealt with at the bottom of the article. It's a C FAQ: http://c-faq.com/cpp/multistmt.html
Re: MinUnit – A minimal unit testing framework for C (2002)
#7So, the revelation is that a unit test is an if statement, and if you wrap that into a macro you can call it a framework.
For many novice engineers this is a huge revelation.
Really? Is it perhaps because of those libraries that do their best to make test call sites look like weird pseudo-English. Stuff like having a library function named it():
it(“should be confusing”, function() { ... })
Re: MinUnit – A minimal unit testing framework for C (2002)
#8(2002) according to the HTTP headers:
$ curl -s --head http://www.jera.com/techinfo/jtns/jtn002.html | grep ^Last
Last-Modified: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 07:16:46 GMTRe: MinUnit – A minimal unit testing framework for C (2002)
#9Why not just 1 line? Of course, the application will halt after one test fails, but some people like it this way.
#include
void test_foo() {
assert(foo() == 4 /* foo should be 4 */);
}
Assertion failed at "foo() == 4 /* foo should be 4 */"
Re: MinUnit – A minimal unit testing framework for C (2002)
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
For many novice engineers this is a huge revelation.
Really? Is it perhaps because of those libraries that do their best to make test call sites look like weird pseudo-English. Stuff like having a library function named it(): it(“should be confusing”, function() { ... })
It always really bothered me that there had to be so much syntactical sugar on top of testing frameworks. Unit testing should be written in exactly the syntax of the language you are working with. I don't want to have to carry that additional crap in my working memory while writing code. I can't stand having to look up Gherkin syntax just to write a few dumb tests.
The only reason I see the usefulness of additional syntax just for tests is the case to have non-technical people writing tests. From my experience, this is a terrible idea.