-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.1k
test: enable parameterized test for HttpProtocolIntegrationTest #41635
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
cpakulski
wants to merge
6
commits into
envoyproxy:main
Choose a base branch
from
cpakulski:http_integr_paramed
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
c1861ee
Defined a template with extra params.
cpakulski 8e03974
Template for integration tests with additional parameters.
cpakulski 45d52fd
Chnaged outlier tests to parameterized.
cpakulski c6fb675
Format.
cpakulski 580c34d
Corrected parameter type.
cpakulski 208a16e
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into http_integr_paramed
cpakulski File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Please make this a struct rather than a tuple with explanatory comments and const indices.
Or, better for this purpose, don't use parameterized testing for this at all - it's much clearer to just have member variables in the test class, so instead of something like
you just do
Even though if there are many tests this may result in more lines (it typically doesn't actually because the fields usually end up one line each, and passing the same values into helper functions is also usually one line), it makes for test code that's dramatically easier to read and understand, and you don't need to include special stringification functions and struct/tuple definitions etc.
Helper functions in the test class, member variables in the test class for persistent stuff, and custom matchers, will typically be fewer lines overall than a monolithic "do all the same stuff with different inputs" function - you can still put all the repetitive stuff inside helper functions.
In general if you use TEST_P with only one test, you shouldn't be using TEST_P - it's useful for the combinatorial thing where you want to run multiple tests with a range of configuration states.