3 ms·

A minimal C unit testing framework (only 3 LOC)

20 points by mapleoin 17y ago

Locke1689 17y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assert.h http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assert.h For those of you working in embedded environments where even that is too heavy: cross-compile or write that stupid macro yourself (it's 3 lines for pity's sake!).
wheaties 17y ago
Um 3 lines? That's not 3 lines. Sure it FITS into 3 lines but every time you see a ";" you also see a new line. So #define mu_run_test(test) do { char message = test(); tests_run++; if (message) return message; } while (0) Isn't one line but #define mu_run_test(test) do { char *message = test(); tests_run++; if (message) return message; } while (0
- steveklabnik 17y ago
  I don't think this is some grand conspiracy where this guy is going to slip a macro past us to make us think he's some super 1337 coder becauase I can count LOC on one hand. It's just that most people would see a #define as 1LOC. The semantics are a bit iffy becuase it's a macro, yes, but even then, okay, it's 12 LOC if you put in those extra lines. It's still tiny. His point about the simplicity of tests still stands.
  - dkersten 17y ago
    Well, then, I'm going to start a blog series about "X in 1 LOC" and just mash everything into one line. If that doesn't work, I'll rename it to "X in 2 LOC" and put the code into a define, then use the define. Obviously I will be posting each and every port to HN. You downvote me now, but you'll be upvoting me when I make infinite amounts of money on my 2 LOC implementations of.. everything :-D
    - steveklabnik 17y ago
      You're still missing the point. It has nothing to do with the value of X, except that it's small.
audidude 17y ago
Neat hack, but I far more enjoy glib's g_test_*() infrastructure. It also integrates well with `make' and can print out reports or store them for future comparisons.
- steveklabnik 17y ago
  The point is not that this is a super robust awesome framework, it's that testing is so simple that everyone should do it.
nkurz 17y ago
I've never liked having to type my test twice, once for the actual test and once for the 'message'. So I do something more like this instead: #include <stdio.h> #define test(expr) do { \ if (!(expr)) printf("FAILED: %s\n", #expr); \ else printf(" ok: %s\n", #expr); \ } while (0) int main(void) { int a = 1; test(a == 1); test(a == 0); return 0; } I don't actually use the direct printf() approach, but this shows the idea. Is there a reason more people don't 'stringify' macro arguments? I'm pretty tied to GCC, and am not always aware of what works on other compilers.
- nova 17y ago
  You could also concatenate the strings, as they are know at compile time, and use puts or something simpler than printf. puts("FAILED: " #expr ) (Or you could keep the printf, as it looks like GCC optimizes it to puts when just used to print a string, without variable interpolation)

20 points by mapleoin 17y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assert.h http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assert.h For those of you working in embedded environments where even that is too heavy: cross-compile or write that stupid macro yourself (it's 3 lines for pity's sake!).

wheaties 17y ago

Um 3 lines? That's not 3 lines. Sure it FITS into 3 lines but every time you see a ";" you also see a new line. So #define mu_run_test(test) do { char message = test(); tests_run++; if (message) return message; } while (0) Isn't one line but #define mu_run_test(test) do { char *message = test(); tests_run++; if (message) return message; } while (0

steveklabnik 17y ago
I don't think this is some grand conspiracy where this guy is going to slip a macro past us to make us think he's some super 1337 coder becauase I can count LOC on one hand. It's just that most people would see a #define as 1LOC. The semantics are a bit iffy becuase it's a macro, yes, but even then, okay, it's 12 LOC if you put in those extra lines. It's still tiny. His point about the simplicity of tests still stands.
- dkersten 17y ago
  Well, then, I'm going to start a blog series about "X in 1 LOC" and just mash everything into one line. If that doesn't work, I'll rename it to "X in 2 LOC" and put the code into a define, then use the define. Obviously I will be posting each and every port to HN. You downvote me now, but you'll be upvoting me when I make infinite amounts of money on my 2 LOC implementations of.. everything :-D
  - steveklabnik 17y ago
    You're still missing the point. It has nothing to do with the value of X, except that it's small.

audidude 17y ago

Neat hack, but I far more enjoy glib's g_test_*() infrastructure. It also integrates well with `make' and can print out reports or store them for future comparisons.

steveklabnik 17y ago
The point is not that this is a super robust awesome framework, it's that testing is so simple that everyone should do it.

nkurz 17y ago

I've never liked having to type my test twice, once for the actual test and once for the 'message'. So I do something more like this instead: #include <stdio.h> #define test(expr) do { \ if (!(expr)) printf("FAILED: %s\n", #expr); \ else printf(" ok: %s\n", #expr); \ } while (0) int main(void) { int a = 1; test(a == 1); test(a == 0); return 0; } I don't actually use the direct printf() approach, but this shows the idea. Is there a reason more people don't 'stringify' macro arguments? I'm pretty tied to GCC, and am not always aware of what works on other compilers.

nova 17y ago
You could also concatenate the strings, as they are know at compile time, and use puts or something simpler than printf. puts("FAILED: " #expr ) (Or you could keep the printf, as it looks like GCC optimizes it to puts when just used to print a string, without variable interpolation)