mirror of
https://github.com/catchorg/Catch2.git
synced 2025-08-03 05:45:39 +02:00
Expanded docs on tests cases and sections (still work-in-progress)
- also touched up some outdated bits in the tutorial
This commit is contained in:
@@ -87,10 +87,61 @@ Of course there are still more issues to do deal with. For example we'll hit pro
|
||||
Although this was a simple test it's been enough to demonstrate a few things about how Catch is used. Let's take moment to consider those before we move on.
|
||||
|
||||
1. All we did was ```#define``` one identifier and ```#include``` one header and we got everything - even an implementation of ```main()``` that will [respond to command line arguments](command-line.md). You can only use that ```#define``` in one implementation file, for (hopefully) obvious reasons. Once you have more than one file with unit tests in you'll just ```#include "catch.hpp"``` and go. Usually it's a good idea to have a dedicated implementation file that just has ```#define CATCH_CONFIG_MAIN``` and ```#include "catch.hpp"```. You can also provide your own implementation of main and drive Catch yourself (see [Supplying-your-own-main()](own-main.md).
|
||||
2. We introduce test cases with the TEST_CASE macro. This macro takes two arguments - a hierarchical test name (forward slash separated, by convention) and a free-form description. The test name should be unique - and ideally will logically group related tests together like folders in a file system. You can run sets of tests by specifying a wildcarded test name.
|
||||
3. The name and description arguments are just strings. We haven't had to declare a function or method - or explicitly register the test case anywhere. Behind the scenes a function with a generated name is defined for you, and automatically registered using static registry classes. By abstracting the function name away we can name our tests without the constraints of identifier names.
|
||||
2. We introduce test cases with the TEST_CASE macro. This macro takes one or two arguments - a free form test name and, optionally, one or more tags (for more see <a href="#testCasesAndSections">Test cases and Sections</a>, below. The test name must be unique. You can run sets of tests by specifying a wildcarded test name or a tag expression. See the [command line docs](command-line.md) for more information on running tests.
|
||||
3. The name and tags arguments are just strings. We haven't had to declare a function or method - or explicitly register the test case anywhere. Behind the scenes a function with a generated name is defined for you, and automatically registered using static registry classes. By abstracting the function name away we can name our tests without the constraints of identifier names.
|
||||
4. We write our individual test assertions using the REQUIRE macro. Rather than a separate macro for each type of condition we express the condition naturally using C/C++ syntax. Behind the scenes a simple set of expression templates captures the left-hand-side and right-hand-side of the expression so we can display the values in our test report. As we'll see later there _are_ other assertion macros - but because of this technique the number of them is drastically reduced.
|
||||
|
||||
<a id="testCasesAndSections"></a>
|
||||
## Test cases and sections
|
||||
|
||||
Most test frameworks have a class-based fixture mechanism. That is, test cases map to methods on a class and common setup and teardown can be performed in ```setup()``` and ```teardown()``` methods (or constructor/ destructor in languages, like C++, that support deterministic destruction).
|
||||
|
||||
While Catch fully supports this way of working there are a few problems with the approach. In particular the way your code must be split up, and the blunt granularity (you can only have one setup/ teardown pair across a set of methods - sometimes you want slightly different setup in each method - or you may want several levels of setup. We'll revisit that concept shortly and, hopefully, make it clearer). It was <a href="http://jamesnewkirk.typepad.com/posts/2007/09/why-you-should-.html">problems like these</a> that led James Newkirk, who led the team that built NUnit, to start again from scratch and <a href="http://jamesnewkirk.typepad.com/posts/2007/09/announcing-xuni.html">build xUnit</a>).
|
||||
|
||||
Catch takes a different approach (to both NUnut and xUnit) that is a more natural fit for C++ and the C family of languages. This is best explaned through an example:
|
||||
|
||||
```c++
|
||||
TEST_CASE( "vectors can be sized and resized", "[vector]" ) {
|
||||
|
||||
std::vector<int> v( 5 );
|
||||
|
||||
REQUIRE( v.size() == 5 );
|
||||
REQUIRE( v.capacity() >= 5 );
|
||||
|
||||
SECTION( "resizing bigger changes size and capacity" ) {
|
||||
v.resize( 10 );
|
||||
|
||||
REQUIRE( v.size() == 10 );
|
||||
REQUIRE( v.capacity() >= 10 );
|
||||
}
|
||||
SECTION( "resizing smaller changes size but not capacity" ) {
|
||||
v.resize( 0 );
|
||||
|
||||
REQUIRE( v.size() == 0 );
|
||||
REQUIRE( v.capacity() >= 5 );
|
||||
}
|
||||
SECTION( "reserving bigger changes capacity but not size" ) {
|
||||
v.reserve( 10 );
|
||||
|
||||
REQUIRE( v.size() == 5 );
|
||||
REQUIRE( v.capacity() >= 10 );
|
||||
}
|
||||
SECTION( "reserving smaller does not change size or capacity" ) {
|
||||
v.reserve( 0 );
|
||||
|
||||
REQUIRE( v.size() == 5 );
|
||||
REQUIRE( v.capacity() >= 5 );
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
For each ```SECTION``` the ```TEST_CASE``` is executed from the start - so as we enter each section we know that size is 5 and capacity is at least 5. We enforced those requirements with the ```REQUIRE```s at the top level so we can be confident in them.
|
||||
This works because the ```SECTION``` macro contains an if statement that calls back into Catch to see if the section should be executed. One leaf section is executed on each run through a ```TEST_CASE```. The other sections are skipped. Next time through the next section is executed, and so on until no new sections are encountered.
|
||||
|
||||
So far so good - this is already an improvement on the setup/ teardown approach because now we see our setup code inline and we can use the stack.
|
||||
|
||||
-{placeholder for documentation on nested sections}-
|
||||
|
||||
## Next steps
|
||||
For more specific information see the [Reference pages](reference-index.md)
|
||||
|
||||
|
Reference in New Issue
Block a user