I am unit testing a bit of code for coverage and am curious how I should handle this given situation.
I can't write the exact code here, so i'm using some placeholders.
TEST_F(testing, testingFunctionCall)
{
bool result = FunctionCall();
EXPECT_EQ(true, result);
}
Now the function call is in another file, and it requires another function to return a number for FunctionCall() to return true.
// In a seperate file
bool FunctionCall()
{
int number = GettingNumberFromSystemState();
if(number > A_CERTAIN_VALUE)
{
return true;
}else{
return false;
}
}
}
The function GettingNumberFromSystemState() will always return a false number because the firmware is not running on the hardware, so how would I create a mock function for GettingNumberFromSystemState() to always return the number I want?
Related
Consider these code happen in real life.
A library code has a function called log_on(), it returns false on fail, true on success, but it has too many false cases.
Before return true/false, it needs to call a callback function application specified. So it looks like:
bool log_on() {
// do something else
bool success = false;
scope_guard guard = [&success]() {
if (success) {
callback(success);
} else {
callback(false);
}
}
success = prepare_logon();
if (success) {
int rc = send_password();
if (rc == PASSWORD_ERR) {
return false;
}
}
if (!send_some_data()) return false;
success = true;
return true;
}
The purpose is too many return cases, and need to call some callbacks if true and false is returned. So someone use scopeguard to do this. Is this a good practice to replace return check with scopeguard use? And in this case, the library code is required not to throw, if user specify a function callback that will throw, so error handling is a problem?
If I had to do this, I'd move the real work into a helper function:
bool log_on_impl() { /* real work here*/ }
bool log_on() {
bool success = log_on_impl();
callback(success);
return success;
}
This way, log_on_impl could do early returns to its heart's content; the callback will still be called with the correct value.
I have several functions that try and evaluate some data. Each function returns a 1 if it can successfully evaluate the data or 0 if it can not. The functions are called one after the other but execution should stop if one returns a value of 1.
Example functions look like so:
int function1(std::string &data)
{
// do something
if (success)
{
return 1;
}
return 0;
}
int function2(std::string &data)
{
// do something
if (success)
{
return 1;
}
return 0;
}
... more functions ...
How would be the clearest way to organise this flow? I know I can use if statements as such:
void doSomething(void)
{
if (function1(data))
{
return;
}
if (function2(data))
{
return;
}
... more if's ...
}
But this seems long winded and has a huge number of if's that need typing. Another choice I thought of is to call the next function from the return 0 of the function like so
int function1(std::string &data)
{
// do something
if (success)
{
return 1;
}
return function2(data);
}
int function2(std::string &data)
{
// do something
if (success)
{
return 1;
}
return function3(data);
}
... more functions ...
Making calling cleaner because you only need to call function1() to evaluate as far as you need to but seems to make the code harder to maintain. If another check need to be inserted into the middle of the flow, or the order of the calls changes, then all of the functions after the new one will need to be changed to account for it.
Am I missing some smart clear c++ way of achieving this kind of program flow or is one of these methods best. I am leaning towards the if method at the moment but I feel like I am missing something.
void doSomething() {
function1(data) || function2(data) /* || ... more function calls ... */;
}
Logical-or || operator happens to have the properties you need - evaluated left to right and stops as soon as one operand is true.
I think you can make a vector of lambdas where each lambdas contains specific process on how you evaluate your data. Something like this.
std::vector<std::function<bool(std::string&)> listCheckers;
listCheckers.push_back([](std::string& p_data) -> bool { return function1(p_data); });
listCheckers.push_back([](std::string& p_data) -> bool { return function2(p_data); });
listCheckers.push_back([](std::string& p_data) -> bool { return function3(p_data); });
//...and so on...
//-----------------------------
std::string theData = "Hello I'm a Data";
//evaluate all data
bool bSuccess = false;
for(fnChecker : listCheckers){
if(fnChecker(theData)) {
bSuccess = true;
break;
}
}
if(bSuccess ) { cout << "A function has evaluated the data successfully." << endl; }
You can modify the list however you like at runtime by: external objects, config settings from file, etc...
I have the following code which returns ERROR in many lines:
bool func()
{
if (acondition)
{
return 0;
}
return 1;
}
int cmdfun()
{
other_funcs;
if (func()) return ERROR#NUMBER;
other_funcs;
if (func()) return ERROR#NUMBER;
}
But I found its becoming longer and longer. How can I encapsulate return ERROR#NUMBER into func() also? Or any way to encapsulate if (func()) return ERROR; into another independent function?
You can't really achieve this using return on its own.
But you could throw an exception in func which will bubble up the call stack, in the way you seem to want program control to:
struct myexception{}; /*ToDo - inherit from std::exception?*/
bool func()
{
if (acondition){
return 0; /*normal behaviour, perhaps make `func` void if not needed?*/
}
throw myexception();
}
cmdfun then takes the form:
int cmdfun()
{
other_funcs;
func();
other_funcs;
func();
/* don't forget to return something*/
}
Finally, make sure you catch the exception in the caller to cmdfun.
As I said it is not an exception and cannot be handled by std::exception, it is just an error message and ERROR#NUMBER is just another macro. And I cannot access to the caller to cmdfun(). So unable to adopt the first answer. But after asked someone else, it is possible to encapsulate returns and save time when typing them, though it's not recommended, but in this particular case, I can use macro. A complete example is given below:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
#define CHECK_VEC(acondition)\
if(checkcondition(acondition)) return -1;
bool checkcondition(bool acondition)
{
if (acondition) return 1;
return 0;
}
int fun_called_by_main()
{
int a = 5 + 4;
bool acondition = a;
CHECK_VEC(acondition);
return 1;
}
int main()
{
int a = fun_called_by_main();
cout << a << endl;
cin.get();
return 0;
}
If I understood corectly your question, you are asking for an 'error reporter' for your own errors. There are 2 solutions for 2 separate cases:
Case 1 - you still want to use a return statement to make an 'error reporter':
To do this, you'll have to make another function or just learn how to use goto. However, you don't need to - your function returns a boolean(bool) - which means you only have 2 possible results: 0 (False) and 1 (True)
bool func()
{
if (acondition)
{
return (bool)0; // False (no error)
}
return (bool)1; // True (error)
// Note: I used (bool)0 and (bool)1 because it is
// more correct because your returning type is bool.
}
void errorcase(bool trueorfalse)
{
switch(trueorfalse)
{
case False:
... // your code (func() returned 0)
break;
default:
... // your code (func() returned 1)
break;
// Note that you will not need to check if an error occurred every time.
}
return;
}
int cmdfun()
{
... // your code
errorcase(func());
... // again - your code
return 0; // I suppouse that you will return 0...
}
But I think that the second case is more interesting (unfortunetly it is also preety hard to understand as a beginner and the first solution might be a lot easier for you):
Case 2 - you decided to do it somehow else - that's by learning throw and catch - I won't repeat the answer because it is already given: #Bathsheba answered preety good...
If I desire to run a piece of code in a function, only from the second invocation of the function onwards,
Questions:
Is there something wrong to do that?
How can I possibly achieve this ? Is using a static variable to do this a good idea ?
There's two answers to this question, depending on whether you have to deal with multi-threaded serialization or not.
No threading:
void doSomething() {
static bool firstTime = true;
if (firstTime) {
// do code specific to first pass
firstTime = false;
} else {
// do code specific to 2nd+ pass
}
// do any code that is common
}
With threading:
I'll write the generic boilerplate, but this code is system specific (requiring some variant of an atomic compareAndSet).
void doSomethingThreadSafe() {
static volatile atomic<int> passState = 0;
do {
if ( passState == 2 ) {
//perform pass 2+ code
break;
} else
if ( passState.compareAndSet(0,1) ) { // if passState==0 set passState=1 return true else return false
//perform pass 1 initialization code
passState = 2;
break;
} else {
//loser in setup collision, delay (wait for init code to finish) then retry
sleep(1);
}
} while(1);
//perform code common to all passes
}
Multi-threading will be a problem. To prevent this, if required, you'll probably need something like a mutex.
Like this:
void someFunction()
{
static bool firstRun = true;
if (!firstRun)
{
// code to execute from the second time onwards
}
else
{
firstRun = false;
}
// other code
}
Add a global counter.
eg:-
static int counter = 0;
public void testFunc(){
if(counter==1){
........
<Execute the functionality>
........
}
counter++;
}
I am trying to refactor the following code, as I don't think it is structured well.
Can you think of a more elegant way to do this?
Bar::Bar()
{
m_iter1 = 0;
m_iter2 = 0;
}
bool Bar::foo()
{
_reinitialize();
for (; m_iter1 < 2; m_iter1++, m_iter2 = 0) {
_log("TRYING METHOD: [%d]", m_iter1);
if (_something_wrong(m_iter1)) {
return false;
}
for (; m_iter2 < 6; m_iter2++) {
if (_try_with_these_params(m_iter1, m_iter2, ...)) {
m_status = success;
// store next iteration in case we need to retry.
m_iter2++;
return true;
}
}
}
return false;
}
bool try_foo(Bar& bar)
{
if (bar.foo()) {
if (meet_some_criteria) {
return true;
} else {
bar.invalidate();
// retry. the Bar object stores the state.
try_foo(bar);
}
} else {
return false;
}
}
int main()
{
Bar bar;
if (try_foo(bar)) {
_log("SUCCESS");
} else {
_log("FAILURE");
}
}
The code loops over different parameter sets and tries to perform some action with these parameters. If the action is successful, then external code may invalidate the action and attempt to retry. The object which performs the action stores the state, so that external code may retry and re-enter the parameter loop at the place it left off.
The output using one parameters affect others, so the calculations need to be accomplished locally within the Bar class.
I would like to extend this idea to more dimensions, but doing so with the current design is clumsy.
A lot here depends on how expensive the various actions are.
If initially generating a candidate parameter set is cheap (and the set isn't too large), then you might want to just generate all the candidate sets, then give that result to the external code and try each in turn until you find one that the external code will accept.