dejagnu
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

DejaGnu unit testing protocol


From: Jacob Bachmeyer
Subject: DejaGnu unit testing protocol
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 17:05:11 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.8.1.22) Gecko/20090807 MultiZilla/1.8.3.4e SeaMonkey/1.1.17 Mnenhy/0.7.6.0

I had been planning to look at this later, but fixing PR42399 brought this front-and-center. The DejaGnu unit testing protocol is not (yet) documented (will be fixed as part of PR42399) and there is a strange quirk in its handler.

What produces lines with prefixes matching {[0-9][0-9]:..:..:} and/or why is host_execute looking for that pattern? These lines have the effect only of resetting a timeout counter and printing the line if verbose is 3 or higher but are otherwise ignored.


The DejaGnu unit testing protocol is very simple, and I think I can work with this fairly well for the long-term. DejaGnu spawns a unit test program and reads that program's output. Arguments for the unit test program can be specified in the testsuite. The unit test program can produce any output, but DejaGnu is sensitive to lines beginning with a tab character, followed by uppercase letters, followed by a colon. These lines (currently) indicate test results and (in the future) provide additional information to effect proper testing. (Examples of future extensions now planned include support for known failures and framework-assessed expected failures. Currently, the dejagnu.h header provides xfail/xpass functions to allow unit tests to declare expected failure, but host_execute does not recognize these results; this second bug is now slated to be fixed for 1.6.3.)

Unit test programs may also produce other output for the benefit of a developer directly running them or reading the DejaGnu log, but the sequence {\n\t[][[:upper:]]*:} should be considered reserved for the DejaGnu unit testing support.


Anyone know why that pattern was included in host_execute or have other comments?


-- Jacob



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]