Multiple-inputs test case macro

[den-mentiei]

Hello.

I've started to use Catch lately and came up with an idea of some useful test case macroses. Something similiar to GoogleTest value-parameterized tests, but much more lightweight (as Catch is, compared to GoogleTest, too).

These macros can be used to declare test cases, which should be run multiple times - once per each item of some input array (or two arrays in an all matches combination).

To allow something like that:

struct TokenCase {
  std::string input;
  Token::Type type;
};

static const TokenCase NUMBER_TOKEN_CASES[] = {
  { "0x123", Token::NUMBER },
  { "0b101", Token::NUMBER },
  { "0o723", Token::NUMBER },
  { "0123", Token::NUMBER },
  { "123", Token::NUMBER },
};

// Variable test_case should be available within test case scope from the 1D macro expansion.
TESTCASE_1D("Numbers lexing", "[lexer]", NUMBER_TOKEN_CASES) {
  // To provide more info on this case on failed assertion.
  INFO("Testing: " << test_case.input);

  // Some sample code to use a test case value.
  Lexer lexer(test_case.input);
  lexer.next();

  REQUIRE(lexer.current().type == test_case.type);
}

I've already implemented this and can work up on the docs (also, on any changes/imporevements yoi can think of) and make a pull request if you are interested.

References:

• http://www.nunit.org/index.php?p=testCase&r=2.6.3
• https://code.google.com/p/googletest/wiki/AdvancedGuide#Value_Parameterized_Tests

[philsquared]

This essentially what Generators are (which are an unfinished, undocumented, feature in Catch - so I'm not suggested you should use them - or even know about them!).

I have some work on a local branch that moves Generators forward a bit but they are still a little way off an official inclusion.

For now take a look at https://github.com/philsquared/Catch/blob/master/projects/SelfTest/GeneratorTests.cpp to get an idea of the direction I'm going with it.

[den-mentiei]

Any ETAs/progress status on this feature in your branch? I need this and have time to help :)

[philsquared]

I don't have an ETA, I'm afraid.
And it's one of those things that's mostly design work - rather than raw implementation - so I'm iterating the design. Difficult to share that out - but as I get back to it I'll see if there's anything I can pass on - thanks for the offer!

[philsquared]

I'm closing this issue in favour of a dedicated generators/ property based testing ticket, #850.
Be sure to watch that issue for notifications if you're interested,