I am using CodeBlocks to write my programs in C++ and I noticed the following. Both my main class and one my Unit Test class are in the same folder (say FolderName). From both of them, I call a method that inputs a file which is in the same folder (FileName.txt). From main I call it like this, and it works fine.
obj.("FileName.txt");
From the test file, I need to give the whole address of the file for it to work.
obj.("/home/myName/FolderName/FileName.txt");
I know there must be a way of setting the Unit Test file so that it works like the main but I could not figure it out. I am not sure if this is important but I am working on Linux
My apologies if you've already figured this out, but I'll answer for anyone else who may be wondering.
CodeBlocks creates an executable for your unit test and stores it in /home/myName/FolderName/bin/unitTest/. CodeBlocks runs this executable when you execute your unit test. Therefore, your pwd is not /home/myName/FolderName/ but /home/myName/FolderName/bin/unitTest/.
You're using gtest, but regardless of which framework you use, there are a few ways to do what you're asking:
The best option is to use the address obj.("../../FileName.txt")
The other option is to copy FileName.txt to /home/myName/FolderName/bin/unitTest/ (or whatever you named your unit test build option). You can then simply use "FileName.txt" in your unit test.
Cheers.
Related
My unit test needs a remote server address to startup. The server address is not fixed.
If I put the address in my .go test source, I will change them everytime when I run it.
If I put them in system environment variable, it is very inconvenience to change it in VSCode GUI. (I mean I will start the test in VSCode menu.)
I known I can put environment variable in launch.json to setup before run or debug my program. But here I just want to run unit test.
Is there a good way to change the parameters without restarting the VSCode?
You can add following snippets to VSCode settings.json to specify environment variables just for go test runs:
Defining variables directly:
"go.testEnvVars": {
"MY_VAR": "my value"
},
Or using dedicated file (in my example called test.env in root of project workspace) containing the environment variables in MY_VAR="my value" format with one variable per line:
"go.testEnvFile": "${workspaceFolder}/test.env",
Also note that unit tests (as name suggests they test one unit of code) should generally not depend on any external services or resources. Everything except the logic under test should be provided in form of mocks.
So basically what I need isn't a specific code (of course that would be great), but just an idea and methods on how to achieve my goal.
1) I have to create a program in C++ , which generates a little example of C++ code, that is each time a bit different. (This causes no problems for me, I will use a template and randomize some variables in the code, which will make it unique every time.)
2) I will display the generated code and the user will have to type in, what he thinks the code prints out.
And here is where the problems start:
3) I have to take the generated code and compile it somehow to get a string with the text that the program would have printed out.
4) And then compare the string with what the user has typed in.
So the step 3) is where I stop and can't figure it out without help... I was thinking to write the generated code in a function of a .cpp file and then call that function, but I couldn't get it to work, so I started to think, I should ask an expert, maybe there are some other methods or ideas how to achieve this.
Write the .cpp file
invoke the compiler (or make or equivalent build system)
if compilation fails, presumably display the errors?
if compilation succeeds, run the resulting program and display the output
It's probably simplest to wrap 2/3/4 into a script, and invoke that with system or popen. The script can make sure the filenames are unique, fold stderr into stdout, etc. etc.
Your running program isn't really interacting with the compiled code, just reading the output, so keeping it as a seperate process is probably easiest. The script can add some markup to help you distinguish compiler output/errors from the program output.
I haven't written a batch file for years, but once you know how to run your compiler from the command line (ref), you can write a script to:
compile a .cpp file
execute the resulting .exe
redirect its output to a file
then, in C++ you just need to save the code to the .cpp file the script expects, execute the script like system("myScript.bat"), and then read the output file.
If you don't want to write a seperate batch script, you can just call system once to invoke the compiler, and again to execute the resulting .exe.
I think you are looking for a way to script c++. Have a look at http://www.softintegration.com/ or this stackoverflow question Any tutorial for embedding Clang as script interpreter into C++ Code?.
I have not used this but it is free and also does not compile but interpret. Very suitable for your problem, worth a shot...
http://root.cern.ch/drupal/content/cint
why dont you compile the generated code standalone using system() call?
system("g++ temp.cpp -o temp.exe); --something of this sort and then based on the return value
you can run temp.exe again like system("temp.exe"); Ofcourse you can print the output from temp.exe to a file and read that file to get the output of temp.exe to your current program..
Would something like Geordi work?
You can invoke the c++ compiler just like you'd invoke any external tool. E.g. system("g++ test.cpp") or use popen or whatever else is offered by your platform.
You could also look into integrating a library that implements a compiler into your program. For that you might want to look into clang and llvm.
So I'm interested in doing some unit testing of a library that interacts with a kernel module. To do this properly, I'd like to make sure that things like file handles are closed at the end of each test. The only way this really seems possible is by using fork() on each test case. Is there any pre-existing unit test framework that would automate this?
An example of what I would expect is as follows:
TEST() {
int x = open("/dev/custom_file_handle");
TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL(x, 3);
}
TEST() {
int y = open("/dev/other_file_handle");
TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL(x, 3);
}
In particular, after each test, the file handles were closed, which means that the file descriptor should likely be the same value after each test.
I am not actually testing the value of the file descriptor. This is just a simple example. In my particular case, only one user will be allowed to have the file descriptor open at any time.
This is targeting a Linux platform, but something cross platform would be awesome.
Google Test does support forking the process in order to test it. But only as "exit" and/or "death" tests. On the other hand, there is nothing to prevent you from writing every test like that.
Ideally, though, I would recommend that you approach your problem differently. For example, using the same Google Test framework, you can list test cases and run them separately, so writing a simple wrapper that invokes each binary multiple times to run different test will solve your problem. Fork has its own problems, you know.
The Check unit testing library for C by default executes each test in a separate child process.
It also supports two different kinds of fixtures - ones that are executed before/after each test - in the child process - (called 'checked') and ones that are executed before/after a test-suite - in the parent process - (called 'unchecked' fixtures).
You can disable the forking via the environment variable CK_FORK=no or an API call - e.g. to simplify debugging an issue.
Currently, libcheck runs under Linux, Hurd, the BSDs, OSX and different kinds of Windows (mingw, non-mingw etc.).
I'm just starting to use QTestLib. I have gone through the manual and tutorial. Although I understand how to create tests, I'm just not getting how to make those tests convenient to run. My unit test background is NUnit and MSTest. In those environments, it was trivial (using a GUI, at least) to alternate between running a single test, or all tests in a single test class, or all tests in the entire project, just by clicking the right button.
All I'm seeing in QTestLib is either you use the QTEST_MAIN macro to run the tests in a single class, then compile and test each file separately; or use QTest::qExec() in main() to define which objects to test, and then manually change that and recompile when you want to add/remove test classes.
I'm sure I'm missing something. I'd like to be able to easily:
Run a single test method
Run the tests in an entire class
Run all tests
Any of those would call the appropriate setup / teardown functions.
EDIT: Bounty now available. There's got to be a better way, or a GUI test runner that handles it for you or something. If you are using QtTest in a test-driven environment, let me know what is working for you. (Scripts, test runners, etc.)
You can run only selected test cases (test methods) by passing test names as command line arguments :
myTests.exe myCaseOne myCaseTwo
It will run all inits/cleanups too. Unfortunately there is no support for wildcards/pattern matching, so to run all cases beginning with given string (I assume that's what you mean by "running the tests in an entire class"), you'd have to create script (windows batch/bash/perl/whatever) that calls:
myTests.exe -functions
parses the results and runs selected tests using first syntax.
To run all cases, just don't pass any parameter:
myTests.exe
The three features requested by the OP, are nowadays integrated in to the Qt Creator.
The project will be automatically scanned for tests and they apear on the Test pane. Bottom left in the screenshot:
Each test and corresponding data can be enabled by clicking the checkbox.
The context menu allows to run all tests, all tests of a class, only the selected or only one test.
As requested.
The test results will be available from the Qt Creator too. A color indicator will show pass/fail for each test, along additional information like debug messages.
In combination with the Qt Creator, the use of the QTEST_MAIN macro for each test case will work well, as each compiled executable is invoked by the Qt Creator automatically.
For a more detailed overview, refer to the Running Autotests section of the Qt Creator Manual.
I have noticed that if I have a set of regression tests and decide to change a property on one of my objects (DTO) from int to decimal for example - i make all the other changes and the tests pass like normal. But if this project is under source control (VSS specifically) this small change will cause something strange to happen...
Similar to this question
Testing in Visual Studio Succeeds Individually, Fails in a Set
But a little different. I can make this change, and try to run my tests and any test that has an assert around this new data type will fail, but if I then click "debug checked tests" and it then runs through the previously failed tests - they pass. No changes to the test code /etc
Does anyone know why this might be happening? I hate to work outside of source control but if my tests are not reliable ... why have them at all in this case ... and I live for testing code :P
Given the age of the question, I doubt it's still an issue for you, but I wonder if you have a bin or obj folders under source control or an assembly that is in them?
If they are then when you compile the app (before MSTest runs) the source controlled assemblies are going to be in read-only mode and won't get overridden by the compiler and thus your tests will be against out of date binaries.