I created my first test class with the Netbeans Test creating function and all test passed.
Now i would like to print in the main in the terminal window "Success" if test x passes.
I thought something like:
void test(bool testResult)
{
if(testResult==true)
cout << "Success";
}
Parameter testResult should be the result of test x.
But where and how do i get that status from?
How to check the status of tests in main ?
Update:
i got now this:
void test(bool testResult)
{
if(testResult==true)
{
cout << "Success";
}else cout << "Failure";
}
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
....
test(newtestclass); //included my testclass.h and put the test class as parameter
}
i get now only 1 error in Netbeans:
"main.cpp:59:22: error: expected primary-expression before ‘)’ token"
You are mainly referencing a method. Try this:
test();
in the Main () or anywhere, where you would think it should work! But remember to always include a parameter inside the method such as:
Main(/* anything */) {
bool x = true;
test(x);
}
This way, the code will execute and in the beginning it will go for the method, and will execute it! It will use the value of the x bool, and will run as you have written the method for it!
Secondly,
if(testResult == true) {
has the same meaning as
if(testResult) {
Second method is better and shorter.
Related
I am writing unit tests for one of the classes I want to test. Function infFooLoop() what I want to test is executed in endless loop (request to stop it comes externally). My problem is I want to change the private variable state_ via setter in setState when function executes in separate thread asynchronously. Some simplified code example is here:
enum class State : int
{
Success = 1,
Failure = 2
};
class Foo
{
private:
State state_{State::Success};
bool stop_flag_{false};
public:
void setState(State state) { state_ = state; }
void infFooLoop(bool &start)
{
while (start)
{
std::cout << "While loop executes \n";
if (state_ == State::Failure)
{
stop_flag_ = true;
}
else if (stop_flag_)
{
std::cout << "Program stopped\n";
// Report error but for this example break
break;
}
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(200));
}
}
};
int main()
{
Foo obj;
bool flag{true};
std::future<void> future = std::async(std::launch::async, [&](){ obj.infFooLoop(flag);});
// Try to change the data:
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(1000));
// I want to change data for `Failure` so stop_flag condition will be used
obj.setState(State::Failure);
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(1000));
// terminate loop
flag = false;
return 0;
}
state_ will be taken from external component and stop_flag_ is used to handle some corner-case here (in real it wont break the loop, just report error to different component).
I assume infFooLoop executes on a separate thread so I can't just call another function in a different thread to change this data. stop_flag_ is some internal variable used only in this one function so I want to leave it as simple as possible (do not introduce mutexes/atomic in Foo class only for tests). Can you give me some suggestions on what should I do here?
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...
Is there any ASSERT_AND_RETURN macro in Google Test that tests something, and if it is false, raises an assertion and returns a value?
Actually every ASSERT_XXX returns from function - but it does not return value - it is assumed that the function (in most cases functions created by TESTxx macros) are void function.
This is sometimes issue when you use ASSERT_XXX within function called from another function. To check if function failed on assert - you need to use ASSERT_NO_FATAL_FAILURE.
See example
void assertNotNull(int *p)
{
ASSERT_THAT(p, NotNull(p));
}
void assertSizeIs(int actual, int expected)
{
ASSERT_EQ(actual, expected);
}
TEST(A, B)
{
std::pair<int*,int> p = createArray(7);
ASSERT_NO_FATAL_FAILURE(assertNotNull(p.first));
ASSERT_NO_FATAL_FAILURE(assertSizeIs(p.second, 7));
for( int i = 0; i < 7; ++i)
ASSERT_EQ(0, p.first[i]);
}
For my assignment, I'm storing user login infos. I'm taking in a string which is the command. The command can be create, login, remove, etc. There are 10 total options, i.e 10 different strings possible. Can anyone explain a more efficient way to write this instead of 10 if and else if statements? Basically how should I format/structure things besides using a bunch of if (string == "one"), else if (string == "two"). Thank you
I expect that your lecturer would like you to extract function to another re-usable function:
string action;
command = CreateAction(action);
command.Do(...);
Ofcourse, inside you CreateAction class you still need to have the conditionals that determine which commands need to be created.
AbstractCommand CreateAction(action)
{
if (action == "login")
return LoginCommand();
else if (action == "remove")
return RemoveCommand();
..... etc etc
}
And if you really want to get rid of all the conditionals than you can create some self-registering commands but that involves a lot more code and classes......
You should look up things like Command Pattern and Factory Pattern
You can use function pointers and a lookup table.
typedef void (*Function_Pointer)(void);
void Create(void);
void Login(void);
void Remove(void);
struct Function_Option_Entry
{
const char * option_text;
Function_Pointer p_function;
};
Function_Option_Entry option_table[] =
{
{"one", Create},
{"two", Login},
{"three", Remove},
};
const unsigned int option_table_size =
sizeof(option_table) / sizeof(option_table[0]);
//...
std::string option_text;
//...
for (i = 0; i < option_table_size; ++i)
{
if (option_text == option_table[i].option_text)
{
option_table[i].p_function();
break;
}
}
Use a switch, and a simple hash-function.
You need to use a hash-function, because C and C++ only allow switching on integral values.
template<size_t N> constexpr char myhash(const char &x[N]) { return x[0] ^ (x[1]+63); }
char myhash(const string& x) { return x.size() ? x[0] ^ (x[1]+63) : 0; }
switch(myhash(s)) {
case myhash("one"):
if(s != "one") goto nomatch;
// do things
break;
case myhash("two"):
if(s != "two") goto nomatch;
// do things
break;
default:
nomatch:
// No match
}
Slight adjustments are needed if you are not using std::string.
I would recommend you to create a function for every specific string. For example, if you receive a string "create" you will call function doCreate(), if you receive a string "login" then you call function doLogin()
The only restriction on these function is that all of them must have the same signature. In an example above it was smh like this:
typedef void (*func_t) ();
The idea is to create a std::map from strings to these functions. So you wouldn't have to write 10 if's or so because you will be able to simple choose the right function from the map by the name of a specific string name. Let me explain it by the means of a small example:
typedef void (*func_t) ();
void doCreate()
{
std::cout << "Create function called!\n";
}
void doLogin()
{
std::cout << "Login function called!\n";
}
std::map<std::string, func_t> functionMap;
void initMap()
{
functionMap["create"] = doCreate;
functionMap["login"] = doLogin;
}
int main()
{
initMap();
std::string str = "login";
functionMap[str](); // will call doLogin()
str = "create";
functionMap[str](); // will call doCreate()
std::string userStr;
// let's now assume that we also can receive a string not from our set of functions
std::cin >> userStr;
if (functionMap.count(userStr))
{
functionMap[str](); // now we call doCreate() or doLogin()
}
else
{
std::cout << "Unknown command\n";
}
return 0;
}
I hope it will help you in someway=)
You can use a map which does the comparison for you.
Something like this:
Initialise map:
std::map<std::string, std::function<void(std::string&)>> map;
map["login"] = std::bind(&Class::DoLogin, this, std::placeholders::_1);
map["create"] = std::bind(&Class::DoCreate, this, std::placeholders::_1);
Receive message:
map.at(rx.msg_type)(rx.msg_data);
Handler:
void Class::DoLogin(const std::string& data)
{
// do login
}
Maybe you can create a std::map<std::string, int> and use map lookups to get the code of the command that was passed - you can later switch on that number. Or create an enum Command and have a std::map<std::string, Command> and use the switch.
Example:
enum Command
{
CREATE,
LOGIN,
...
};
std::map<std::string, Command> commandNameToCode;
// fill the map with appropriate values
commandNameToCode["create"] = Command::CREATE;
// somehow get command name from user and store in the below variable (not shown)
std::string input;
// check if the command is in the map and if so, act accordingly
if(commandNameToCode.find(input) != commandNameToCode.end())
{
switch(commandNameToCode[input])
{
case CREATE:
// handle create
break;
...
}
}