Hi, Il 02/04/19 17:14, Mitch Curtis ha scritto:
Quoting the commit message here:WIP: Add _THROW variants to testlib macros This allows using Qt Test macros in helper functions, avoiding the need to write a lot of boilerplate code as seen with alternative approaches.
I may like the overall approach. However, this would imply that such tests require exceptions / RTTI turned on inside QtTestLib / user code; is it "OK" in the grand scheme of things?
I have a question regarding this particular implementation, that is, why adding dedicated testing functions? Can't you "simply" change the currently existing QVERIFY/QCOMPARE to throw exceptions in case of failure, instead of returning from the current test function? This would achieve major consistency -- simply use the same functions everywhere, no matter what.
This idea isn't failproof, as:1) it requires the exception to propagate through a direct QMetaObject::invoke (that is, whatever mechanism testlib uses to invoke the test functions); but that should be already supported and tested, even.
2) it causes a minor SC in case the user was doing it wrong -- "catching all", without rethrowing an unknown exception type. Before, a failing test would simply return. With this idea, it would throw, and the exception could be caught by the catch all and not used to block the execution of the current test function.
The last can be solved in a very simple way (e.g. make this mechanism opt-in; and also provide something to the user to test if the current catch-all is a Qt test failure, via std::current_exception()).
My 2 c, -- Giuseppe D'Angelo | [email protected] | Senior Software Engineer KDAB (France) S.A.S., a KDAB Group company Tel. France +33 (0)4 90 84 08 53, http://www.kdab.com KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts
smime.p7s
Description: Firma crittografica S/MIME
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
