On 2023-10-06 10:52, David Marchand wrote:
On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 1:26 PM Mattias Rönnblom <hof...@lysator.liu.se> wrote:
[snip]
+#define RETURN_ON_ERROR(rc) \
+ do { \
+ if (rc != TEST_SUCCESS) \
+ return rc; \
+ } while (0)
TEST_ASSERT?
This gives context about which part of a test failed.
This macro is used in a situation where the failure has occured and has
been reported already.
Maybe it would be better to replace the macro instationation with just
the if+return statements.
RETURN_ON_ERROR(rc);
->
if (rc != TEST_SUCCESS)
return rc;
Yes, this macro does not add much, you can remove it.
OK, will do.
[snip]
+ for (i = 0; i < NUM_SERVICE_CORES; i++)
+ if (app->service_lcores[i] == lcore_id)
+ return i;
This construct is hard to read and prone to error if the code is updated later.
for () {
if ()
return i;
}
I wouldn't consider that an improvement (rather the opposite).
Well, I disagree, but it is not enforced in the coding style so I won't insist.
[snip]
+static struct unit_test_suite test_suite = {
+ .suite_name = "Event dispatcher test suite",
+ .unit_test_cases = {
+ TEST_CASE_ST(test_setup, test_teardown, test_basic),
+ TEST_CASE_ST(test_setup, test_teardown, test_drop),
+ TEST_CASE_ST(test_setup, test_teardown,
+ test_many_handler_registrations),
+ TEST_CASE_ST(test_setup, test_teardown,
+ test_many_finalize_registrations),
+ TEST_CASES_END()
+ }
+};
+
+static int
+test_dispatcher(void)
+{
+ return unit_test_suite_runner(&test_suite);
+}
+
+REGISTER_TEST_COMMAND(dispatcher_autotest, test_dispatcher);
We have new macros (see REGISTER_FAST_TEST for example) so a test is
associated to an existing testsuite.
I think this test should be part of the fast-test testsuite, wdyt?
It needs setup and teardown methods, so I assume a generic test suite
woulnd't do.
The dispatcher tests do have fairly short run times, so in that sense
they should qualify.
So please use REGISTER_FAST_TEST().
Thanks.
OK.
