-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.1k
test: enable parameterized test for HttpProtocolIntegrationTest #41635
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
c1861ee
Defined a template with extra params.
cpakulski 8e03974
Template for integration tests with additional parameters.
cpakulski 45d52fd
Chnaged outlier tests to parameterized.
cpakulski c6fb675
Format.
cpakulski 580c34d
Corrected parameter type.
cpakulski 208a16e
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into http_integr_paramed
cpakulski File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Please make this a struct rather than a tuple with explanatory comments and const indices.
Or, better for this purpose, don't use parameterized testing for this at all - it's much clearer to just have member variables in the test class, so instead of something like
you just do
Even though if there are many tests this may result in more lines (it typically doesn't actually because the fields usually end up one line each, and passing the same values into helper functions is also usually one line), it makes for test code that's dramatically easier to read and understand, and you don't need to include special stringification functions and struct/tuple definitions etc.
Helper functions in the test class, member variables in the test class for persistent stuff, and custom matchers, will typically be fewer lines overall than a monolithic "do all the same stuff with different inputs" function - you can still put all the repetitive stuff inside helper functions.
In general if you use TEST_P with only one test, you shouldn't be using TEST_P - it's useful for the combinatorial thing where you want to run multiple tests with a range of configuration states.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@ravenblackx Thanks for reviewing. I think you have very good points here. What bothered me was the amount of repeated code and I was under the impression that the best way to solve them was using parameterized tests. But your point that it is difficult to read such tests is a very valid one! Especially, when COMBINE is used to built a matrix of parameters.
I am going to close this PR and refactor my tests to use helper functions (as you suggest), which should be much cleaner and easier to understand.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
One more minor suggestion that may or may not help - sometimes a good thing to do is subclass a test class with some common initialization, so you can have a "generic" test class you use for awkward cases, where you call the helper functions explicitly, and the "common" test class where all the initialization and teardown helpers are called with default args in the SetUp/TearDown/constructor/destructor of the class and you just do the one differing part explicitly.
(But also sometimes it may be clearer to just always explicitly call the helpers, or use a short version of the helpers like
defaultInitialize().)The subclass thing is especially likely to be useful in integration tests because there sometimes the integration test superclass performs some initialization, so you have to prepare different setup stuff during the constructor or SetUp function, via an overridden virtual function.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is a great point. I will try to refactor the same tests I tried to parameterize in this PR and will see where special initialization is needed.