Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 12:53:45 -0800 From: Enji Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> To: Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org> Cc: "freebsd-testing@freebsd.org" <freebsd-testing@freebsd.org>, Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org>, Julio Merino <jmmv@freebsd.org>, "Jonathan T. Looney" <jtl@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: atf-c++ vs GoogleTest vs share/mk Message-ID: <A6D8F747-37B6-4EC9-ADE6-823E529EF226@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAOtMX2jCi9ZUVdCLVE8kMRcrdwAmSbLPJTmHdhf3pJyyWR=k-A@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAOtMX2h_tJHH=mX8wVrMLQNeCsN%2B_D4Jw35KyuiHUcQniNweWg@mail.gmail.com> <C9F53820-7817-4FEC-A20C-ACA35819E763@gmail.com> <CAOtMX2jCi9ZUVdCLVE8kMRcrdwAmSbLPJTmHdhf3pJyyWR=k-A@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Feb 27, 2019, at 12:42 PM, Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 12:46 PM Enji Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> On Feb 27, 2019, at 9:59 AM, Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org> wrote: >>> >>> So it turns out to be impossible to use GoogleMock with atf-c++. The >>> problem is that atf-c++'s only way to report a test failure is >>> ATF_FAIL, which immediately terminates the program on failure. That >>> conflicts with the way that GoogleMock uses pthreads, which is to >>> report a failure while a pthread mutex is locked. atf-c++ has many >>> other shortcomings, too. It lacks the ATF_CHECK_* macros, and its >>> syntax is surprisingly inconsistent with atf-c’s. >> >> Yes, I’ve brought that up before in the past. This is part of the reason why I want to abandon/kill off atf-c++ in favor of something more functionally complete, i.e., googletest >> >>> So I tried writing a C++ program that uses atf-c instead. But the >>> Makefiles in share/mk make that a frustrating proposition. They don't >>> want C++ programs to link to atf-c, and they don't want atf-c programs >>> to be built in C++ mode. >> >> Well… yeah. This makes sense. >> >>> Googletest would probably work fine, but I would sorely miss ATF's >>> test case isolation features. >> >> In what ways? Using plain tests builds in some level of isolation, but it’s not perfect, and this is the direction I’m taking Googletest for a first iteration. > > Having $PWD be a disposable tmpdir is convenient, This is already handled via kyua, just like it is with plain tests (and ATF and TAP tests for that matter). > but I'm even more concerned about what happens if a googletest segfaults. In that case, > its cleanup routines won't run. That could potentially be > catastrophic for the entire test run if the test program does > something like alter network configuration. Or do you have a plan for > this? I will look into how Googletest currently handles segfaults, etc, and raise that as a point of concern with the upstream project if need be, as I don’t know how exactly this is handled in exceptional cases. Cheers, -Enji
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?A6D8F747-37B6-4EC9-ADE6-823E529EF226>