search for: gmock

...ired from here /home/davidbolvansky/trunk/llvm/include/llvm/ExecutionEngine/Orc/CompileOnDemandLayer.h:314:29: warning: redundant move in return statement [-Wredundant-move] 314 | return std::move(Err); In file included from /home/davidbolvansky/trunk/llvm/utils/unittest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-spec-builders.h:75, from /home/davidbolvansky/trunk/llvm/utils/unittest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock-generated-function-mockers.h:43, from /home/davidbolvansky/trunk/llvm/utils/unittest/googlemock/include/gmock/gmock.h:61, from /home/davidb...

...oo. A few comments though. > > On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 6:11 AM Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > > ## Matchers > > To start off, it is important to understand that there are two components to what gmock offers. The first has very little to do with "mocks". It is actually a matcher language and system for writing test predicates: > > EXPECT_EQ(expected, actual); > EXPECT_NE(something, something); > > Become instead: > > EXPECT_THAT(actual, Eq(expected)); >...

A long time ago I suggested that we might want to add gmock to compliment the facilities provided by gtest in LLVM's unittests. It didn't go over well: 1) There was concern over the benefit vs. the cost 2) Also concern about what the facilities would look like in practice and whether they would actually help 3) At the time, I didn't have good,...

Keep in mind that I am a maintainer for gmock so this would not change the external project decencies of LLVM. On Nov 12, 2013 9:16 PM, "Chris Lattner" <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Nov 12, 2013, at 7:04 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> > wrote: > > > I have some concrete use cases...

On 13 Nov 2013, at 06:21, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > Keep in mind that I am a maintainer for gmock so this would not change the external project decencies of LLVM. Is gmock written with more portability in mind than gtest? In my experience, bringing up a new platform for gtest is a huge amount of pain (unless the code has been improved recently - I last tried it about 18 months ago), because t...

...ignificantly more precise regression testing in the future. This also isn't the first time I've wanted it in LLVM and in Clang. It's just the first time I've been working on something large enoguh to feel like importing it would be worth the cost. My feeling is that both gtest and gmock suffer from the same flaw: they can easily be overused or misused in circumstances where there are clearly better ways to go about things. However, I feel like within LLVM we have been really good at pushing back against that and using integration tests with excellent tool support (how I love FileC...

...ary) is really low. > > There is definitely a culture/religion around testing and TDD, and I am > well aware that many projects don’t have proper tests (which LLVM doesn’t > suffer from). However, there is a pragmatic balance to be struck here, and > I personally think that adding gmock and pushing the unit tests stuff even > further is a bad use of testing time (i.e., increases test cycles for make > check) and maintenance time (updating tests given that we don’t have a > stable API). > These two things (adding gmock and pushing unittests further) are not necessarily...

On Nov 12, 2013, at 7:04 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > I have some concrete use cases in testing the pass manager where it will allow the tests of this API to be more thorough, less verbose, and easier to maintain. I'm not claiming to be the biggest fan of some features in GoogleMock, but on the whole, I think it's better than the alternative and will

...he future. > > This also isn't the first time I've wanted it in LLVM and in Clang. It's just the first time I've been working on something large enoguh to feel like importing it would be worth the cost. It is always worth reevaluating. > My feeling is that both gtest and gmock suffer from the same flaw: they can easily be overused or misused in circumstances where there are clearly better ways to go about things. However, I feel like within LLVM we have been really good at pushing back against that and using integration tests with excellent tool support (how I love FileC...

...ingly. Given that it will not be used much, the cost of carrying it around (and for people to learn how to use/maintain it) is high. > > I think the cost of carrying it around is essentially zero. I'm happy to do any of the maintenance. I'm not talking about the cost of maintaining gmock itself. I'm talking about the cost of maintaining tests that are ultimately written around it. Alp eloquently made the point up-thread. > People who don't know how to use it or want to learn how to use it don't need to use it. If it isn't making their job of writing tests suff...

I have some concrete use cases in testing the pass manager where it will allow the tests of this API to be more thorough, less verbose, and easier to maintain. I'm not claiming to be the biggest fan of some features in GoogleMock, but on the whole, I think it's better than the alternative and will allow more careful testing of C++ APIs where the interesting part is the API itself.

...en more simply and in a more maintainable fashion. You're welcome to ignore me and keep writing eloquent emails, but you still haven't shown an exact use case - why not write a unit test which demonstrates the benefit and post a patch for review? for those who are not familiar with gtest/gmock it makes it very clear.. Then the discussion moves from opinions and "feelings" to tangibles

...ich is really useful. Type parameterized tests are being discussed > on the mailing list. All while maintaining a small codebase! No not really. I was just curious on why this test kit was picked. Thats all. > > One other nice feature of using gtest is that it integrates with > gmock, one of the only really good C++ mocking libraries available. > It was just recently released. > > http://code.google.com/p/googlemock > > Keir > > Just briefly looked at the googlemock site and it sys about needed tr1 library. Third paragraph in System Requirements. It ju...

I'm sorry I even sent the original email. To be clear, I am trying to write some specific code, and gmock would make my life significantly easier. I'm not really trying to start or win a debate about how to write tests in LLVM. I think that debate should be held around tests, not around abstract libraries if it is even worth having at all. I am a big believer in giving people a powerful set of tool...

...something gtest doesn't already support? Newer releases added support for data parameterized tests, which is really useful. Type parameterized tests are being discussed on the mailing list. All while maintaining a small codebase! One other nice feature of using gtest is that it integrates with gmock, one of the only really good C++ mocking libraries available. It was just recently released. http://code.google.com/p/googlemock Keir > Regards, > Mark Kromis > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu ht...

...in > inconveniencing the user over tiny libraries with liberal licenses. > > I didn't get to look at the license. > http://code.google.com/p/googletest/ -> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php . > One other nice feature of using gtest is that it integrates with gmock, one > of the only really good C++ mocking libraries available. It was just > recently released. > > Just briefly looked at the googlemock site and it sys about needed tr1 > library. Third paragraph in System Requirements. It just struck me as > amusing that visual c++ people need...

On 15 November 2013 04:38, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > Right, validating my assertion that while TDD and unit testing are good in > general, they may not be right for LLVM. In LLVM, we have mature tests of > other sorts, as well as a strong process of review. > While I understand the value of TDD, I have to agree with Chris, here. I have been bitten by

...every single test, each with a different set of integer output parameters that are incremented and decremented at the right points, and then a verification of their final value. This will work, but will be hard to debug (the failure is detected long after it happens) and very verbose. 3) I can use gmock to write a specific set of expected events for a pass and verify that they happen. It was specifically designed to make verifying this kind of interaction explicit with little boilerplate and decent error messages when it fails. I'll try to come up with an example of #3 this evening or tomorro...

...r over tiny libraries with liberal >> licenses. > I didn't get to look at the license. > > http://code.google.com/p/googletest/ -> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php > . >> One other nice feature of using gtest is that it integrates with >> gmock, one of the only really good C++ mocking libraries available. >> It was just recently released. > > Just briefly looked at the googlemock site and it sys about needed > tr1 library. Third paragraph in System Requirements. It just struck > me as amusing that visual c++ people...

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Pete Cooper <peter_cooper at apple.com> wrote: > This is probably most like #1, but i would either improve (or add a > verbose option to) -debug-pass=Structure. Then just write a test which > calls opt with some passes and uses FileCheck to verify the debug output. > Yes, but see the problems with it that I brought up. Note that the new pass