ut VS test

I don't think stepping through static_assert is a thing? Curious if it is, though. Since constexpr is either run-time or compile-time and static_assert is not a poor man's debugging facility could be to -Dstatic_assert(...) assert(__VA_ARGS__) and gdb the code. Alternatively, a more refined solution would be to use an UT framework (for example https://github.com/boost-ext/ut) which helps with that. IMHO, TDD can also limit the requirement of stepping into the code and with gurantees that the code is memory safe and UB safe there is less need for sanitizers and valgrind etc. depending on the coverage.

It was not easy, I had to modify Boost UT to get it to run my tests. It doesn't support type-parametrized tests when the type parameter is non-copiable, which was the case for me. This is a symptom of a larger issue, which is that it relies on std::apply and std::tuple to generate the type-parametrized tests, which in turns requires instantiating the tuple and the contained objects (even though these instances aren't actually used; eh). That's a no go for me, since I need to carefully monitor when instance are created, and this was throwing off my test code. I had to effectively disable these checks to get it to run without failures. Then there was a similar issue with expect(), which doesn't work if part of the expression is non-copiable. I reported these issues to them.

https://github.com/boost-ext/ut (for better user interface when defining tests without macros)

https://github.com/boost-ext/ut from Kris Jusiak is worth checking

C++: C++ has quite a number of benchmarking libraries some of the recent ones involving C++ 20's flexibility. The most notable being Google Bench and UT. C does not have many specific benchmarking libraries, but you can easily integrate C code with C++ benchmarking libraries in order to test the performance of your C code.

UT

In Boost.UT there is a number of different styles to add a parametrized test case. All of them are pretty cryptic bue to heavy isage of oeverloaded operators of custom "non-public" classes. Except for the for-loop method, in all other methods the list of parameter values goes after the test procedure definition. I find this inconvenient, as I want to see list of parameter value next to the test name. This is what I used to from the times I was coding a lot of unit tests in C#.

The de-facto standard for testing an Elm application is elm-test. However, as noted in the README:

Once all that handwritten C code was solid, I needed to make sure the C generated from Elm was working properly. I found the source for the core library's unit tests and decided to port them into my project and add some of my own tests. You can run the tests in WebAssembly in your browser too. (Funnily enough, one of the biggest challenges was getting the Elm Test framework itself to run! The framework is more complex than the tests themselves. I still need to come back to the fuzzer tests!)

Lesson Learned: Elm has built in recursion improvements for a variety of positive reasons, and you should think in recursion to solve looping problems. Use property/fuzz tests and bounds checking with early exit to prevent this from locking up your UI (i.e if > 9000, omg abort). If you’re algorithm is reasonable, but the data set is just gigantic, offload to a server instead for more horsepower. Or Workers if you don’t have server chops, can’t upload the large data, or don’t trust your server devs. (“But Doc, I’m the server dev!” Good joke. Ever̸y̴b̸ody laugh. Roll on s̵͓̆nâ̶̱re drum. Curtains.)