My old team never really used FRIEND_TEST. We found it ugly that our
production code depended on test code. We typically used friended
"Peer" classes defined in the unittest file, but not in the anonymous
namespace. These are simple shims that provide access to the private
section. It also saves on having to FRIEND_TEST each individual test
as you add them. It looks like almost every time FRIEND_TEST is used,
it's used for multiple tests, not just a single one. I'm not sure how
much of a problem chrome has with build dependencies leading to
rebuilds, but it was very annoying in google projects to add a
FRIEND_TEST to a widely used .h file, thus forcing everyone to
rebuild, even though you're only adding a new test.
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Darin Fisher <da...@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 3:55 PM, Scott Hess <sh...@chromium.org> wrote:
>>
>> On the Mac, code like this:
>>
>> namespace {
>> class MyTest : public testing::Test {
>> };
>> } // namespace
>>
>> TEST_F(MyTest, ATest) {
>> }
>>
>> generates errors like this:
>> warning: ‘MyTest_ATest_Test’ has a field
>> ‘MyTest_ATest_Test::<anonymous>’ whose type uses the anonymous
>> namespace
>> warning: ‘MyTest_ATest_Test’ has a base ‘<unnamed>::MyTest’ whose type
>> uses the anonymous namespace
>>
>> Removing the namespace fixes it, which is poor because we seem to want
>> to move towards more anonymous namespace use. Putting the test case
>> inside the namespace also fixes it, but is incompatible with
>> FRIEND_TEST(). This seems to be a gcc 4.2 addition, per:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.2/changes.html
>>
>> "Members of the anonymous namespace are now local to a particular
>> translation unit, along with any other declarations which use them,
>> though they are still treated as having external linkage for language
>> semantics."
>>
>> At this point, I'm sort of at the bleeding edge of my knowledge. For
>> FRIEND_TEST() cases, it seems like the anonymous namespace needs to
>> go, but elsewhere it can be changed to enclose the entire file. Does
>> that seem reasonable for now?
>>
>> -scott
>
>
> Assuming that you really need to use TEST_F, then it would be unfortunate to
> lose the anonymous namespace. The anonymous namespace has allowed us to
> have short names for helper classes used by tests without fear of colliding
> with other short names used by other tests. (We have had those kinds of
> conflicts in the past.)
> We don't use FRIEND_TEST that much. Maybe we can just use #ifdef UNIT_TEST
> to expose class APIs to unit tests?
> -Darin
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
