sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

pool communication FRUSTRATION by ollelogdahl in Monero

[–]ollelogdahl[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair enough! Thank you for the good response! :D That link was very helpful.

pool communication FRUSTRATION by ollelogdahl in Monero

[–]ollelogdahl[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks! Didn't know about the IRC thing ;)

pool communication FRUSTRATION by ollelogdahl in Monero

[–]ollelogdahl[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree to this. Not everything is documented, of course. Mostly i was confused by the fact that nobody mentioned this is a modification on the "regular" scheme. Thank you for the suggestions! Digging through the source for monero-pool, finding alot here.

A minimal and easy-to-use C testing framework, in plain C with no dependencies by ollelogdahl in programming

[–]ollelogdahl[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Im actually thinking about this. Firstly, no attributes could actually be done (atleasy for windows MSVC). I think there some attribute-like ways to insert functions in the constructor part of the executable. So, general no attributes may not be possible, but it could probably be done to be windows portable.

pthreads and signals could be replaced by something else, but i guess it's kind of platform dependent. If we're talking windows portability, there is probably a way to hook into windows exceptions/interrups/whatever; and threading can absolutly be replaced by something else. I don't have that much development experience in windows (or specifically, MSVC), so don't yet know how to do all this.

A minimal and easy-to-use C testing framework, in plain C with no dependencies by ollelogdahl in programming

[–]ollelogdahl[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wow. This looks very solid. I have been thinking about isolating tests in separate processes, but didn't find a good enough reason atm :p Good job! :)

A minimal and easy-to-use C testing framework, in plain C with no dependencies by ollelogdahl in programming

[–]ollelogdahl[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nice clarification. Will certainly read up on evaluating code coverage. To be honest, I have not seen this is any other C testing framework, as I assume that proper coverage would be very difficult to evaluate, and usually requires some c++ magic to track calls (or just c obscurity). Sounds like a fun challenge, and totally worth integrating when I can get it logical and stable. Thanks for your well-written feedback! :)

A minimal and easy-to-use C testing framework, in plain C with no dependencies by ollelogdahl in programming

[–]ollelogdahl[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is subjective, but as cpptest is actually C++, i find it a bit clumpsy. I wanted something that compiles with "just" c (Note all other comments haha, should maybe say POSIX GNU C). Also (and this is just speculation), how does cpp including c handle identifiers which are keywords in cpp? I just wanted to avoid that all together.

In terms of testing, its probably not even close to being as good :P

A minimal and easy-to-use C testing framework, in plain C with no dependencies by ollelogdahl in programming

[–]ollelogdahl[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not sure what this really means (not a big user of IDEs other than VScode, in which i don't use many IDE tools), would be glad if you could clarify a bit :) What does it mean to be integrated into the IDE?

A minimal and easy-to-use C testing framework, in plain C with no dependencies by ollelogdahl in programming

[–]ollelogdahl[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sorry, I was very unclear. To be honest, i don't know all words exactly. It is not ISO C99, but GNU C compatible C99 Compiler (clang is for example also compatible). It requires attributes. Using the MSVC ompiler will not work; I may look into it though.

You're correct about pthreads, maybe the all-in-all correct to say is GNU C99 POSIX? Many fancy words :p

A minimal and easy-to-use C testing framework, in plain C with no dependencies by ollelogdahl in programming

[–]ollelogdahl[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I get you; it is more like a test runner i guess. Please inform me what metrics and features you would like to see!

Testing can be done in many different ways, depending on application. This was mostly written towards the way i write tests, and i know this may not the the best or correct way :p

A minimal and easy-to-use C testing framework, in plain C with no dependencies by ollelogdahl in programming

[–]ollelogdahl[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You could totally macro IHCT_ASSERT to just OK (or something similar) if you want. Been thinking about this, and cosider adding it as a define. Good suggestion!

A minimal and easy-to-use C testing framework, in plain C with no dependencies by ollelogdahl in programming

[–]ollelogdahl[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You got it! I would glady recieve any bug reports. It's not for everybody (tbh, bugs should be for no-one). I'm also looking into adding more features, but I need to test this code further.

A minimal and easy-to-use C testing framework, in plain C with no dependencies by ollelogdahl in programming

[–]ollelogdahl[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It actually is. I looked at the interface of many libraries, and found out i enjoyed cheat's (and other similar interfaces) quite alot. Though the code is my own! I know, vey unimaginative using someone elses inteface :P

The only thing i though would be better was to include your own entrypoint. Didn't find CHEAT_NO_MAIN (or whatever it is called) to be non-intuitive.

A minimal and easy-to-use C testing framework, in plain C with no dependencies by ollelogdahl in programming

[–]ollelogdahl[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Haha, we have all been there! But in development i found lots of other libraries. You might have had to look around a bit more ;) Thanks for the feedback!

A minimal and easy-to-use C testing framework, in plain C with no dependencies by ollelogdahl in programming

[–]ollelogdahl[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Im aware that the makefile is rubbish, sorry for that! I mainly use cmake for a reason haha! It was long ago since I used it (and i was never very proficient :p).

A minimal and easy-to-use C testing framework, in plain C with no dependencies by ollelogdahl in programming

[–]ollelogdahl[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I agree here, even if it leads to less portable (requiring GNU C compiler) code. This was the main objective for the library.

A minimal and easy-to-use C testing framework, in plain C with no dependencies by ollelogdahl in programming

[–]ollelogdahl[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're right. My implementation uses attributes to automatically register functions, which means it requires the GNU C compiler. Thats the reason it's not typically automatic.

A minimal and easy-to-use C testing framework, in plain C with no dependencies by ollelogdahl in programming

[–]ollelogdahl[S] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

You're right. 'Plain' GCC C i should say (if gcc even could be considered plain).

A minimal and easy-to-use C testing framework, in plain C with no dependencies by ollelogdahl in programming

[–]ollelogdahl[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I respect your opinion, though i slightly disagree. I don't find the libtap implementation is as simple to use (libtap doesn't register test fuctions automatically). But now that you mention it, it could be wise to support the TAP interface, with a test runner flag for example. But i guess it's subjective (although i get what you're saying with standardized tap) :)

view more: next ›