www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.learn - unittest blocks not being run inside of class and struct templates

reply NoBigDeal256 <nobigdeal256 gmail.com> writes:
For example this code:

class Test {
     unittest {
         assert(false);
     }
}

fails when ran with dmd test.d -unittest like you'd expect. But 
if I make it a class template:

class Test(T) {
     unittest {
         assert(false);
     }
}

it passes when it should fail because the unittest block is never 
executed. Why is this? While googling I found this thread 
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/Xns98A859B0CD274pchapinsovernet 63.105.9.61 but
surely that bug hasn't gone unfixed for 11 years...
Jul 24
parent reply Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 25 July 2017 at 02:11:20 UTC, NoBigDeal256 wrote:
 it passes when it should fail because the unittest block is 
 never executed. Why is this?
Did you actually instantiate the class somewhere? A template has no concrete code unless created with an argument somewhere...
Jul 24
next sibling parent reply NoBigDeal256 <nobigdeal256 gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 25 July 2017 at 02:18:41 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
 On Tuesday, 25 July 2017 at 02:11:20 UTC, NoBigDeal256 wrote:
 it passes when it should fail because the unittest block is 
 never executed. Why is this?
Did you actually instantiate the class somewhere? A template has no concrete code unless created with an argument somewhere...
Well shit that was the issue. My mistake, I should have thought of that, but it makes total sense now. What is the standard way of testing class templates in the context of a library where some of the classes may never actually be used by the library itself? I know I could just make a private module-level field declaration that just instantiates a template but that seems like an ugly way of handling it. Any suggestions on how you would handle this?
Jul 24
parent Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
On Tuesday, 25 July 2017 at 02:48:57 UTC, NoBigDeal256 wrote:
 What is the standard way of testing class templates in the 
 context of a library where some of the classes may never 
 actually be used by the library itself?
Write a test and instantiate whatever templates you want to test. class Test(T) { } unittest { auto t=new Test!int; assert(t.method1()==1); }
Jul 25
prev sibling parent reply NoBigDeal256 <nobigdeal256 gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 25 July 2017 at 02:18:41 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
 On Tuesday, 25 July 2017 at 02:11:20 UTC, NoBigDeal256 wrote:
 it passes when it should fail because the unittest block is 
 never executed. Why is this?
Did you actually instantiate the class somewhere? A template has no concrete code unless created with an argument somewhere...
What if it's instantiated in another module? Right now I'm having issues where if I run 'dmd a.d b.d -unittest' and the class template in b.d is instantiated in a.d and it compiles and the tests inside my class template run as they should, but when using 'dub test' the tests in my class template don't run at all as if it isn't instantiated in a.d even though it is. This is the original issue that I had that prompted me to create this thread.
Jul 24
parent reply Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On 7/24/17 11:13 PM, NoBigDeal256 wrote:
 On Tuesday, 25 July 2017 at 02:18:41 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
 On Tuesday, 25 July 2017 at 02:11:20 UTC, NoBigDeal256 wrote:
 it passes when it should fail because the unittest block is never 
 executed. Why is this?
Did you actually instantiate the class somewhere? A template has no concrete code unless created with an argument somewhere...
What if it's instantiated in another module? Right now I'm having issues where if I run 'dmd a.d b.d -unittest' and the class template in b.d is instantiated in a.d and it compiles and the tests inside my class template run as they should, but when using 'dub test' the tests in my class template don't run at all as if it isn't instantiated in a.d even though it is. This is the original issue that I had that prompted me to create this thread.
There is a whole can of worms to be dealt with if you put unit tests inside template classes or structs. For instance: struct Foo(T) { T foo() { return T.init; } unittest { Foo!int f; assert(is(typeof(f.foo()) == int)); } } the unit test is instantiated EVERY TIME Foo is instantiated, so if you have Foo!int and Foo!string both instantiated, BOTH will run this unit test. Obviously, there is no need to run both. And yes, user code will also add unit tests unwittingly to their code. In some cases, this can be useful. If you write like this: struct Foo(T) { T foo() { return T.init; } unittest { Foo f; // note the lack of ! assert(is(typeof(f.foo()) == T)); } } This means that for every instantiation, the unit test is checking that Foo.foo returns T. But this comes at a cost. Generally unit tests deal with concrete data, not abstract concepts. This means, you really only want to unit test for some instantiations, not all. In phobos, I did this for RedBlackTree. It works well, in that test coverage is nearly complete over all integral types of elements. However, there are drawbacks: 1. RedBlackTree with -unittest *will* add unit tests to user modules (unavoidable). 2. There are some tricky mechanisms to make it work properly (see the code) 3. It comes back to bite me every once in a while, bugs are filed about this. The unfortunate thing is that if you want to have non-templated unit tests, you have to put them outside the struct itself. This sucks for documented unit tests, and for tests being close to the thing being tested. I'd love to have a way to specify that a unit test is really outside the struct, but still have it written inside. I'm not sure if it would be accepted though. -Steve
Jul 25
parent Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn writes:
On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 09:31:28 Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d-
learn wrote:
 The unfortunate thing is that if you want to have non-templated unit
 tests, you have to put them outside the struct itself. This sucks for
 documented unit tests, and for tests being close to the thing being
 tested. I'd love to have a way to specify that a unit test is really
 outside the struct, but still have it written inside. I'm not sure if it
 would be accepted though.
When there was a discussion that previously (earlier this year, I think), I was talking about updating the DIP on this that I'd created, and Andrei basically said that it was a waste of my time to do so and that it would be rejected. I don't know what Walter's position on it is (though previous discussions on the topic imply that Walter doesn't think that the issue is a big deal), and I don't know what it would take to talk Andrei into it, but I expect that it would require a _very_ well written DIP with very good reasons as to why a language feature was better than the pain of doing something like you did with RedBlackTree. But Andrei certainly seemed to think that doing what you did with RedBlackTree was perfectly acceptable as opposed to disgustingly ugly, albeit better than just letting the tests sit there and get compiled into every instantiation. The DIP I wrote previously suggested using static on the unittest blocks to indicate that they weren't really part of the template, which seemed perfectly reasonable to me, but Timon had a decent argument as to why reusing static didn't make sense. So, we'd need some other sort of attribute to do it, but regardless, IMHO having an attribute of some kind to solve this problem would be light years better than what we have now. Unfortunately, previous discussions on the topic indicate that any DIP on the subject is likely to get rejected, which pisses me off given how ugly the workaround is, but I don't know what to do about it except maybe wait awhile before creating the DIP in the hopes that putting some time between the DIP being proposed and Andrei basically saying that any such DIP would be rejected would make it less likely that he'd remember that and more likely that he'd be receptive to it. However, without something more that shows that it's a serious problem, I question that we stand much chance of convincing him. But maybe I just suck at explaining why this issue is bad enough to merit a language fix and someone else could explain it in a way that would convince him. - Jonathan M Davis
Jul 27