On 02/04/2019 11.14, Mitch Curtis wrote: > As described in https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-66320, > currently Qt users are on their own if they want to call helper > functions that can fail a test. The reason is documented: > > Note: This macro can only be used in a test function that is invoked > by the test framework. > > [...] > > I'm curious what other people think about [throwing exceptions > instead]?
IMNSHO, I think Qt would do well to take a close and careful look at Google Test, which IMO has a much better design, at least as far as how test assertions are handled. In particular, I miss having a distinction between fatal and non-fatal assertions, which, aside from their own inherent value, I think would be a better solution to this problem. These could be combined with a macro to invoke a helper function which would a) add additional context if the helper function produces *any* test output (I'm thinking this should include use of QDebug), and b) optionally¹ abort the caller² if a fatal assertion has occurred. (¹ Why optional? I've found it extremely useful to be able to use "fatal" assertions to abort a sub-block of a unit test, such as a helper function. So useful, in fact, that I've adopted a regular pattern of immediately-invoked lambdas for the sole purpose of controlling "how much" of a test case a fatal assertion aborts.) (² How? By recording somewhere that a fatal exception has occurred, and having the invocation wrapper check that and abort the caller. Note that this needs to distinguish between "fatal exception(s) happened previously" and "new fatal exception(s) happened in what I called".) -- Matthew _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
