Previously registration was case preserving, but lookup used
lowercased reporter name, so a reporter whose name contained
upper case character could not be requested by the user.
The problem was that every line would iterate from current line
start position to the end of the string, looking for a newline
to break on, leading to accidentally quadratic runtime. With this
change, the code only ever searches up to the current line's
length and not more.
Credit to @jorgenpt for the fix suggestion.
Closes#2315
This is what should normally happen, even if it does not change
anything given that `Column::const_iterator` is currently a typedef
for `Column::iterator`.
Previously a lambda parser in Clara could only be invoked once,
even if it internally was ok with being invoked multiple times.
With this change, a lambda parser can mark itself as `accept_many`,
in which case it will be invoked multiple times if the appropriate
flag was supplied multiple times by the user.
This greatly simplifies running Catch2 tests in single binary
in parallel from external test runners. Instead of having to
shard the tests by tags/test names, an external test runner
can now just ask for test shard 2 (out of X), and execute that
in single process, without having to know what tests are actually
in the shard.
Note that sharding also applies to test listing, and happens after
tests were ordered according to the `--order` feature.
The problem came from the console reporter trying to provide a
fancy linebreaking (primarily for things like `SCENARIO` or the
BDD macros), so that new lines start with extra indentation if
the text being line broken starts as "{text}: ".
The console reporter did not properly take into account cases
where the ": " part would already be in a later line, in which
case it would ask for non-sensical level of indentation (larger
than single line length).
We fixed this by also enforcing that the special indentation case
only triggers if the ": " is found early enough in the line, so
that we also avoid degenerate cases like this:
```
blablabla: F
a
n
c
y
.
.
.
```
Fixes#2309
Clang-tidy is smart enough to understand that the conditional is never
updated in the loop body. It will let you get away with it if it can
prove that the conditional is always false, but that is not always
possible.
Here is an example where it's not able to prove it, and thus gives a
false positive. This is a minimal reproduction of an actual case I hit
in production, where `function` is picking the function based on some
`constexpr` logic related to which type argument is currently being
tested.
```
int f();
TEMPLATE_TEST_CASE("reproduction", "", int) {
const auto function = []() {
return f;
}();
const int error = function();
REQUIRE(error == 0); // clang-tidy complains: bugprone-infinite-loop
}
```
I did not choose to add this test to the test suite, since we're not
running `clang-tidy` in CI afaik. To run it manually, simply add the
snippet above somewhere and run clang-tidy with
`--checks=bugprone-infinite-loop`. Or see an example at
https://godbolt.org/z/4v8b8WexP.
The reason we get the infinite loop warning in the first place is the
conditional at the end of this `do`-loop. Ideally, this conditional
would just be `while(false)`, but the actual content of the
`REQUIRE`-statement has been included here too in order to not loose
warnings from signed/unsigned comparisons. In short, if you do
`REQUIRE(i < j)`, where `i` is a negative signed integer and `j` is an
unsigned integer, you're supposed to get a warning from
`-Wsign-compare`. Due to the decomposition in Catch2, you lose this
warning, which is why the content of the `REQUIRE` statement has been
added to the conditional to force the compiler to evaluate the actual
comparison as well.
This was discussed on Discord today, and an alternative approach (which
I don't have time to implement) would be to in the decomposition replace
the comparison operators with `cmp_less` and friends. These are C++20
though, and would have to be implemented manually. I am also not sure
it's a good idea to "magically" change the semantics of `<` when it's
used inside a `REQUIRE` macro.
Another alternative approach would be to trigger this warning in a
different way, by including the content of the `REQUIRE` macro in a
different way which doesn't affect the for loop. But I don't have enough
of an overview here to know where would be a good place and how to test
that I didn't break anything.
