[WIP] Better bindings tests #2348
Open
Conversation
This file contains 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
bendk
force-pushed
the
push-moxsutuzotvp
branch
from
a4f02d0 to
cb2cb25
Compare
bendk
force-pushed
the
push-moxsutuzotvp
branch
from
cb2cb25 to
a85bcd0
Compare
This comes from my experiences with mozilla#2333 and uniffi-bindgen-gecko-js. For those, I needed to run a lot of tests while (re)implementing a bindings generator. I love how the current tests cover basically all UniFFI features, but I think there a few things that can be improved. This commit adds a suite of tests specifically aimed at the bindings. The new tests target specific features rather than trying to mimic real-world examples. Before, I spent a lot of time trying to figure out what a test failure meant. I'm hoping that when one of these tests fail, it's obvious what's not working. It also means that the new test suites don't require writing so much foreign code. They also have a better external bindings story. I'm thinking we can direct external bindings authors to copy everything the `bindings-tests/fixtures` sub-directories and write their own version of `bindings-tests/tests/tests.rs`. They get to use the macro now, since it's doesn't hard code the mapping from file extension to test runner. Copying the code feels a bit weird, but I like it better than having to publish all these test fixture crates and I think it will work okay in practice. I still want to keep the current examples/fixtures. They're nice because they showcase real-world use-cases and test that those use-cases work like we expect them to. If this gets merged, we can rework those crates to focus on that. Maybe we rework them to only test one bindings language per example/fixture.
bendk
force-pushed
the
push-moxsutuzotvp
branch
from
a85bcd0 to
81e6fc6
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
I'm sharing this one early, before I get too deep in it. I only implement the first few basic tests and only in Python, but hopefully it paints a fairly clear picture of what I'm going for. WDYT?
This comes from my experiences with #2333 and uniffi-bindgen-gecko-js. For those, I needed to run a lot of tests while (re)implementing a bindings generator. I love how the current tests cover basically all UniFFI features, but I think there a few things that can be improved. This commit adds a suite of tests specifically aimed at the bindings.
The new tests target specific features rather than trying to mimic real-world examples. Before, I spent a lot of time trying to figure out what a test failure meant. I'm hoping that when one of these tests fail, it's obvious what's not working. It also means that the new test suites don't require writing so much foreign code.
They also have a better external bindings story. I'm thinking we can direct external bindings authors to copy everything the
bindings-tests/fixturessub-directories and write their own version ofbindings-tests/tests/tests.rs. They get to use the macro now, since it's doesn't hard code the mapping from file extension to test runner. Copying the code feels a bit weird, but I like it better than having to publish all these test fixture crates and I think it will work okay in practice.I still want to keep the current examples/fixtures. They're nice because they showcase real-world use-cases and test that those use-cases work like we expect them to. If this gets merged, we can rework those crates to focus on that. Maybe we rework them to only test one bindings language per example/fixture.