tor/src/common/testsupport.h

/* Copyright (c) 2013, The Tor Project, Inc. */
/* See LICENSE for licensing information */

#ifndef TOR_TESTSUPPORT_H
#define TOR_TESTSUPPORT_H

#ifdef TOR_UNIT_TESTS
#define STATIC
#else
#define STATIC static
#endif

#endif
Start work on fancy compiler tricks to expose extra stuff to our tests This is mainly a matter of automake trickery: we build each static library in two versions now: one with the TOR_UNIT_TESTS macro defined, and one without. When TOR_UNIT_TESTS is defined, we can enable mocking and expose more functions. When it's not defined, we can lock the binary down more. The alternatives would be to have alternate build modes: a "testing configuration" for building the libraries with test support, and a "production configuration" for building them without. I don't favor that approach, since I think it would mean more people runnning binaries build for testing, or more people not running unit tests. 2013-06-06 20:56:05 +02:00			`/* Copyright (c) 2013, The Tor Project, Inc. */`
			`/* See LICENSE for licensing information */`

			`#ifndef TOR_TESTSUPPORT_H`
			`#define TOR_TESTSUPPORT_H`

			`#ifdef TOR_UNIT_TESTS`
Completely refactor how FILENAME_PRIVATE works We previously used FILENAME_PRIVATE identifiers mostly for identifiers exposed only to the unit tests... but also for identifiers exposed to the benchmarker, and sometimes for identifiers exposed to a similar module, and occasionally for no really good reason at all. Now, we use FILENAME_PRIVATE identifiers for identifiers shared by Tor and the unit tests. They should be defined static when we aren't building the unit test, and globally visible otherwise. (The STATIC macro will keep us honest here.) For identifiers used only by the unit tests and never by Tor at all, on the other hand, we wrap them in #ifdef TOR_UNIT_TESTS. This is not the motivating use case for the split test/non-test build system; it's just a test example to see how it works, and to take a chance to clean up the code a little. 2013-06-06 23:58:28 +02:00			`#define STATIC`
Start work on fancy compiler tricks to expose extra stuff to our tests This is mainly a matter of automake trickery: we build each static library in two versions now: one with the TOR_UNIT_TESTS macro defined, and one without. When TOR_UNIT_TESTS is defined, we can enable mocking and expose more functions. When it's not defined, we can lock the binary down more. The alternatives would be to have alternate build modes: a "testing configuration" for building the libraries with test support, and a "production configuration" for building them without. I don't favor that approach, since I think it would mean more people runnning binaries build for testing, or more people not running unit tests. 2013-06-06 20:56:05 +02:00			`#else`
Completely refactor how FILENAME_PRIVATE works We previously used FILENAME_PRIVATE identifiers mostly for identifiers exposed only to the unit tests... but also for identifiers exposed to the benchmarker, and sometimes for identifiers exposed to a similar module, and occasionally for no really good reason at all. Now, we use FILENAME_PRIVATE identifiers for identifiers shared by Tor and the unit tests. They should be defined static when we aren't building the unit test, and globally visible otherwise. (The STATIC macro will keep us honest here.) For identifiers used only by the unit tests and never by Tor at all, on the other hand, we wrap them in #ifdef TOR_UNIT_TESTS. This is not the motivating use case for the split test/non-test build system; it's just a test example to see how it works, and to take a chance to clean up the code a little. 2013-06-06 23:58:28 +02:00			`#define STATIC static`
Start work on fancy compiler tricks to expose extra stuff to our tests This is mainly a matter of automake trickery: we build each static library in two versions now: one with the TOR_UNIT_TESTS macro defined, and one without. When TOR_UNIT_TESTS is defined, we can enable mocking and expose more functions. When it's not defined, we can lock the binary down more. The alternatives would be to have alternate build modes: a "testing configuration" for building the libraries with test support, and a "production configuration" for building them without. I don't favor that approach, since I think it would mean more people runnning binaries build for testing, or more people not running unit tests. 2013-06-06 20:56:05 +02:00			`#endif`

			`#endif`