Re: [Freekode-public] Tests (was: Re: Premake)

[Ricardo S. <rik...@gm...>]

On 9/11/07, Pedro Angelo <pa...@dc...> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 23:49:09 +0100
> Guilherme Santos <gui...@gm...> wrote:
>
> > Speaking on tests.
> > I'm using CppUnit to keep my tests organized (I have only one at this
> > moment). Another advantage is that is easy to add or remove tests and
> > keep everything running.
> >
> > But this approach has several disadvantages too.
> > It's implemented in C++ and if we think in (possible) future
> > platforms such as mobile, it could be more complicated to get the
> > framework compiling for that platforms.
> >
> > Anyway, it's easy to copy the tests code and use it to build a
> > simpler test unit.
> >
> > What are you planning to test the freekode?
> > If you guys think it's better to build another approach, it's easy
> > for me to copy the code I have done.
> >
> > For the moment, I'll continue to use the cppunit to test my stuff :)
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Guilherme Santos
>
> Hi Guilherme,
>
> I've also been thinking about this, and to make the code as portable as
> possible we probably should create our own mini test suite in ANSI C
> and expand it as need arises.
>
> I've had some experience testing C code with Check and although it's
> cleverly designed to avoid C's pitfalls in regards to testing code, it
> falls a bit short on portability for more exotic platforms because it
> relies on certain UNIX functions like fork() and vsnprintf(). A few
> years back I tried porting it to a DEC Alpha workstation only to
> realize that not all UNIX environments have vsnprintf()...
>
> Since openKode targets embedded platforms I'm expecting that we can't
> count on much more than a working ANSI C compiler.
>
> So anyway, back to the idea of a minimalistic test framework what do you
> guys prefer:
>
> a) Each test is an executable in a special "test dir" and a test runner
> app runs each test it finds via system() and reports the output.
>
> b) Each test is a function (usually a macro) and the test runner just
> calls the functions iteratively (this usually requires a fork() to
> avoid a bad test crashing the test runner)
>
> I'm currently leaning towards option a) but I can use whatever
> alternative you feel more comfortable with.
>
> Cheers,
> p.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> _______________________________________________
> Freekode-public mailing list
> Fre...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freekode-public
>

I also agree that tests should be made ANSI C compatible to make sure they
run in most (if not all) platforms.
I'd also go for option a).

Regards,
Ricardo.