Skip to content

test: Add unit tests for ExecutionResult constructors #435

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
axic merged 1 commit into from
Jul 22, 2020
Merged

test: Add unit tests for ExecutionResult constructors #435

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
42 changes: 42 additions & 0 deletions test/unittests/api_test.cpp
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -25,6 +25,48 @@ ExecutionResult function_returning_void(Instance&, span<const uint64_t>, int) no
}
} // namespace

TEST(api, execution_result_trap)
{
const auto result = Trap;
EXPECT_TRUE(result.trapped);
EXPECT_FALSE(result.has_value);
EXPECT_EQ(result.value, 0);
}

TEST(api, execution_result_void)
{
const auto result = Void;
EXPECT_FALSE(result.trapped);
EXPECT_FALSE(result.has_value);
EXPECT_EQ(result.value, 0);
}

TEST(api, execution_result_value)
{
const ExecutionResult result = 1234;
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@axic axic Jul 22, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. 

const ExecutionResult result{1234};

results in

/Users/alex/Projects/fizzy/test/unittests/api_test.cpp:46:27: error: call to constructor of 'const fizzy::ExecutionResult' is ambiguous
    const ExecutionResult result{1234};
                          ^     ~~~~~~
/Users/alex/Projects/fizzy/lib/fizzy/execute.hpp:25:15: note: candidate constructor
    constexpr ExecutionResult(uint64_t _value) noexcept : has_value{true}, value{_value} {}
              ^
/Users/alex/Projects/fizzy/lib/fizzy/execute.hpp:29:24: note: candidate constructor
    constexpr explicit ExecutionResult(bool success) noexcept : trapped{!success} {}
                       ^
/Users/alex/Projects/fizzy/lib/fizzy/execute.hpp:18:8: note: candidate constructor (the implicit move constructor)
struct ExecutionResult
       ^
/Users/alex/Projects/fizzy/lib/fizzy/execute.hpp:18:8: note: candidate constructor (the implicit copy constructor)

EXPECT_FALSE(result.trapped);
EXPECT_TRUE(result.has_value);
EXPECT_EQ(result.value, 1234);
}

TEST(api, execution_result_bool_constructor)
{
bool success = false;
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@gumb0 gumb0 Jul 22, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe it would execute the constructor with this being const, too, I'm not sure, just thought with non-const it's less probable to be optimized away.
Can be merged like this, anyway.

const ExecutionResult result{success};
EXPECT_TRUE(result.trapped);
EXPECT_FALSE(result.has_value);
EXPECT_EQ(result.value, 0);
}

TEST(api, execution_result_uint64_constructor)
{
uint64_t value = 1234;
const ExecutionResult result{value};
EXPECT_FALSE(result.trapped);
EXPECT_TRUE(result.has_value);
EXPECT_EQ(result.value, 1234);
}

TEST(api, resolve_imported_functions)
{
/* wat2wasm
Expand Down