[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       fwknop-discuss
Subject:    Re: [Fwknop-discuss] Code coverage challenges
From:       Franck Joncourt <franck () debian ! org>
Date:       2014-08-24 14:57:45
Message-ID: 3300973.Kl0OHZ3zqs () franck
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi Michael,

[...]
> My sense is that it would be better to have the tests built into each file
> directly, but wrapped with '#if HAVE_C_UNIT_TESTS' along with a
> corresponding './configure --enable-c-unit-tests' argument [1]. This would
> be similar to how the libfiu fault injection stuff was done for 2.6.3, and
> it helps to ensure that production releases of fwknop do not contain any of
> the C unit testing code. Also, this would address the static vs. public
> issue I believe - it would be good to keep functions static to ensure
> compartmentalization of code that shouldn't be seen outside of file scope.
> 
> Do you think this would work? Perhaps when you are ready, you could create
> a c_unit_testing branch on github with an example of this for, say,
> client/get_password.c, client/config_init.c, or one of the lib/*.c files?
> That way I can fetch your branch and try to follow along?

We can try it that way. I am going to create a github branch to test this 
feature as you mentionned.

Regards,

-- 
Franck Joncourt

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.  
Video for Nerds.  Stuff that matters.
http://tv.slashdot.org/
_______________________________________________
Fwknop-discuss mailing list
Fwknop-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwknop-discuss
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]