[Development] Supporting helper functions in auto tests by providing throwing Qt Test macros

Edward Welbourne edward.welbourne at qt.io
Thu Apr 4 10:51:24 CEST 2019


Edward Welbourne (Wednesday, 3 April 2019 5:07 PM)
>> It's probably worth having a macro with which to wrap code, that'll
>> catch any exception it raises, add the current location to what'll be
>> output to log the failure and then rethrows.  This would give us the
>> extra file/line information that your proposed macro gives, compared
>> to a naive throw/catch solution (where the failure throws and
>> TestLib's driver system catches, reporting the helper but not its
>> caller).

Mitch Curtis (4 April 2019 08:43)
> What would the effective difference be from QCHECK_EXCEPTION in the
> proposed patch, in terms of behaviour and output?

Probably very little - I haven't closely reviewed your QCHECK_EXCEPTION
patch, nor am I used to using C++ exceptions.  However, in an
exception-based QTest, QCHECK_EXCEPTION would re-raise the exception it
caught (after logging where it caught it) rather than returning; and
this would mean that a helper could apply it also to places where the
helper calls a sub-helper (see below) to get a full stack-trace for the
failure.

>> I think the idea of rewriting TestLib (including the existing QFAIL,
>> QCOMPARE, QVERIFY and friends) to use exceptions in Qt6 is a good way
>> forward; adding some convenience macro for currentTestFailed() checks
>> is probably sufficient to make helper functions easier to use until
>> then.

> The currentTestFailed() macro is a nice idea, but it's not sufficient
> if your helpers call other functions, because then you have to wrap
> every call site of those functions with the macro.

If you're going to have helpers calling sub-helpers in this way, your
rationale for the primary test function having QCHECK_EXCEPTION add data
about its call-site of the helper surely applies also to the helper's
call to the sub-helper, so surely you want to do the same kinds of
wrapping with QCHECK_EXCEPTION in the helper.  Of course, if you leave
it out at some layer in an exception-based solution, it only loses you
knowledge of part of your stack-trace.

Then again, if you omit a currentTestFailed() check in a helper's call
to the sub-helper, you just get the rest of the helper run, despite some
part of the test code having failed already.  That can be a major
problem if later parts of the helper rely on the sub-helper's success;
but "I rely on its success" is exactly what you express by wrapping code
in the QCHECK macro.  (And, of course, this macro can do logging of its
call-site just the same as the exception-based one can.)

Whatever we do in Qt5, though, should be designed to be compatible with
Qt 6 switching to an exception-based QTest; that would surely be a
better way forward, if we can pull it off,

	Eddy.


More information about the Development mailing list