Skip to content

Conversation

@kripken
Copy link
Member

@kripken kripken commented Jul 8, 2024

Fixes #6718

@kripken kripken requested a review from tlively July 8, 2024 20:15
@kripken kripken mentioned this pull request Jul 8, 2024
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

What would you think about putting this test in a gtest file? Compilation errors in the gtests are caught during the normal build and the tests run much faster, so they seem strictly better than the example tests.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I agree this file might make sense as a gtest, yeah. There was the idea of having special "example" tests that are helpful for people to see code samples of the public API (as opposed to testing of internals, or corner cases of the public API), which is what "example" was meant to invoke, but I suppose we could make gtest/example and document that?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah, gtest/example would be great.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I started to do this but then realized a big missing feature of our gtests atm, which is that they don't work with the auto updater script. So tests like this that match the text format output would need to be manually updated if we ever change the text format. Before we move any significant amount of such tests to gtest we should probably add auto-updating.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

(Which I agree is worth doing, but not trivial.)

@kripken kripken merged commit 0750bdb into WebAssembly:main Jul 9, 2024
@kripken kripken deleted the c.callref branch July 9, 2024 17:06
@gkdn gkdn mentioned this pull request Aug 31, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

How to BinaryenCallRef

2 participants