Howdy,
As I understand it, In Swift 3, a lack of encapsulation is testable, but 
specific keywords to protect a designed encapsulation can’t be introspected, 
and thus encapsulation is fragile, i.e. not protectable by unit tests.

For instance, we can write unit-tests that determine if a member's access level 
is at least a given level.  (by writing a test which accesses it at that 
level.)  However, we cannot test that it is less than, or exactly at a specific 
level.  A member of a large team could escalate an access level during 
development for a new feature, while the developer who wrote the original 
access level (and knows why it is not ok) is on vacation, then another 
developer unaware of the history could begin using it in an unexpected way, 
introducing bugs.  (I wish I invented this example.  Unfortunately, I witnessed 
it a few months after the fact.)  More interesting for Swift 4, a compiled 
module vendor could accidentally publish an API which could be used to violate 
encapsulation in an unexpected way in which the customer is not aware.  Let’s 
not pretend that hasn’t happened either.  Rumor sites thrive on it.

Similarly, I can test that a member is not “final", but I cannot write a test 
to ensure that it is “final”.

The same goes for “class” vs. “static”.  I can test that a class method is 
“class”, but I cannot compile a test that it is “static”, not “class”.

Finally, I can test that a property is a “var”, and has a setter, but I cannot 
compile a test that it is a “let”.

Being able to perform these tests seems as desirable to me as having these 
language features in the first place.  (I do, in principle, want a unit test 
for all the code I write, right?)  I’m certain that all of this information is 
available to the compiler, and that most of it is in the .swiftmodule and 
.swiftdoc files.  Perhaps the sil is the right data for such an analysis.  I 
simply want to raise the desire for such a feature as the team works on 
stabilizing the ABI.

I’m also curious what the community thinks whether testing these would work 
best by declaring explicit functions or references for each one in the test 
module, like AssertTrue(accessLevel(SomeClass.doSomething(_:)) == .private), or 
possibly in some kind of “DebugIntrospection” module not available "on device". 
 Another option is to add a “AssertCantCompile” method which would verify that 
there is at least one compiler failure in some section of conjectural code.  
That could test for anything we don’t think to enumerate. But it becomes 
unwieldy from a syntactic point of view, and if the conjectural code is in a 
string, then it ends up on the wrong side of the build.

-Ben Spratling

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Reply via email to